JASON CHAFFETZ SAYS REPUBLICANS SHOULD TARGET ADAM SCHIFF’S SECURITY CLEARANCE

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“I think the one that has been the most discredited through this entire process is Adam Schiff,” Chaffetz said Thursday on “Varney & Company.”

He then pushed for Congressional Republicans to unite and bring their demands directly to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“I think he should lose his security clearance and I don’t think he should be on the House intelligence committee,” Chaffetz continued. “I wish the Republicans would gather in force and demand that change. Nancy Pelosi knows better. It is a privilege to sit on this committee but he’s used the guise of ‘hey, I see classified information and nobody else does and I’m telling you I’ve seen it first-hand.’ He’s the only person on the planet because he’s making it up and he shouldn’t have a security clearance if you’re going to act like that.”


https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/28/jason-chaffetz-adam-schiff-security-clearance/
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
He's an elected representative. I'm fairly certain that he doesn't have a security clearance, or need one.
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
He's an elected representative. I'm fairly certain that he doesn't have a security clearance, or need one.
That's always been a mystery to me. For Congresspeople who get assigned to intelligence committees (or other committees that deal with secrets), do they get granted a clearance without normal background investigation that mere plebes would have to do? Or is there no actual clearance granted, just a "need to know" based on the committee assignment?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
He's an elected representative. I'm fairly certain that he doesn't have a security clearance, or need one.
Exactly, no clearance required, though some may not have an adequate need to know. Schiff being on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by its nature, has access, but he has also taken a specific oath to secrecy.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
He's an elected representative. I'm fairly certain that he doesn't have a security clearance, or need one.
And, in my view, the vast majority wouldn't be able to get one if they had to go through the vetting a private citizen has to go through.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
Adam Schiff is one of the most insufferable, smarmiest little punks in politics. One day, someone is gonna knock that smirk off his face. :yay:
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Nancy gave a big speech yesterday calling Republicans scaredy cats so maybe she doesn't see the problem.
Personally I doubt she see's much of anything in her addled and senile mind.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
Nancy looks like she's having quite a time enunciating these days. The facial expressions she makes while talking make her look like she's having some kind of facial seizure.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Exactly, no clearance required, though some may not have an adequate need to know. Schiff being on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by its nature, has access, but he has also taken a specific oath to secrecy.
No according to the Protection of Classified Information by Congress: Practices and Proposals

"Although there is no across-the-board, comprehensive requirement for all legislative branch staff, they are required to have security clearances and written nondisclosure agreements to gain access to classified information. These exist through various mechanisms, which apply to different employee categories:"

Read who this actually applies to.

Later explanation:

"A more recent bill, introduced in 2006, would have required a security clearance for Members serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Appropriations Committee. The resolution, however, did not specify which entity (in the legislative or executive branch) would conduct the background investigation or which officer (in Congress or in the executive) would adjudicate the clearances of Members."

And...

"The broad mandate for such clearances could be applied to four different groups: (1) all Senators and Representatives, thus, in effect, becoming a condition for serving in Congress; (2) only Members seeking access to classified information, including those on the panels receiving it; (3) only Members on committees which receive classified information; or (4) only those seeking access to classified information held by panels where they are not members."

And how are these clearances investigated and granted?

"Under a security clearance requirement, background investigations might be conducted by an executive branch agency, such as the Office of Personnel Management or Federal Bureau of Investigation; by a legislative branch entity, such as the House or Senate Office of Security, or the Government Accountability Office; or possibly by a private investigative firm under contract. Possible adjudicators—that is, the officials who would judge, based on the background investigation, whether applicants would be “trustworthy” and, therefore, eligible for access to classified information—could extend to the majority or minority leaders, a special panel in each chamber, a chamber officer, or even an executive branch officer, if Congress so directed."
 
Last edited:

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
No according to the Protection of Classified Information by Congress: Practices and Proposals

"Although there is no across-the-board, comprehensive requirement for all legislative branch staff, they are required to have security clearances and written nondisclosure agreements to gain access to classified information. These exist through various mechanisms, which apply to different employee categories:"

Read who this actually applies to.
You aren't real good at reading stuff, are you? What you posted above is about the staff, not the Congressperson.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
You aren't real good at reading stuff, are you? What you posted above is about the staff, not the Congressperson.
You can insult me if you want; I know this is your tactic when you have been challenged. I know you've been around here for a long and time and have earned respect for your past editorials and such, but that doesn't serve as a means you've earned some respect in disparaging people. That only shows you suck at debate.

Read the rest of the memo. It's obvious you didn't. I added this to my previous post:

"Mandate That Members of Congress Hold Security Clearances to Be Eligible for Access to Classified Information

This would mark a significant and unprecedented departure from the past. Members of Congress (as with the President and Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, or other federal court judges) have never been required to hold security clearances. Most of the proposals along this line appeared in the late 1980s, following charges and countercharges between the executive and legislative branches over unauthorized disclosure of classified information. A more recent bill, introduced in 2006, would have required a security clearance for Members serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Appropriations Committee. The resolution, however, did not specify which entity (in the legislative or executive branch) would conduct the background investigation or which officer (in Congress or in the executive) would adjudicate the clearances of Members."
 

ginwoman

Well-Known Member
Adam Schiff is one of the most insufferable, smarmiest little punks in politics. One day, someone is gonna knock that smirk off his face. :yay:
I cannot stand the sight of him. I bet he got bullied in school and now he's taking it out on all of us.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
You can insult me if you want; I know this is your tactic when you have been challenged. I know you've been around here for a long and time and have earned respect for your past editorials and such, but that doesn't serve as a means you've earned some respect in disparaging people. That only shows you suck at debate.
I didn't even begin to insult you, yet. You just have no clue as to what it is you are reading, to whom it applies, whether it is law or propsal, etc.. The fact is that members of Congress do not have a security clearance, do not go through background investigations, and gain access to classified information based on the duties they perform for which they must affirm/declare an oath of secrecy to what they become aware of
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I didn't even begin to insult you, yet. You just have no clue as to what it is you are reading, to whom it applies, whether it is law or propsal, etc.. The fact is that members of Congress do not have a security clearance, do not go through background investigations, and gain access to classified information based on the duties they perform for which they must affirm/declare an oath of secrecy to what they become aware of
Oh, well I'll just take your word over an official document that states otherwise.

Question for you... if members of congress don't require a clearance, how is it that Schiff has a clearance?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Oh, well I'll just take your word over an official document that states otherwise.

Question for you... if members of congress don't require a clearance, how is it that Schiff has a clearance?
Where does that "official" document state that members of Congress have clearances? I see it "proposes" such, but that isn't reality or what is at this time. And Schiff does not have a clearance, but based on his being a member of Congress, and his duties on committees, he has access to classified information.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Where does that "official" document state that members of Congress have clearances? I see it "proposes" such, but that isn't reality or what is at this time. And Schiff does not have a clearance, but based on his being a member of Congress, and his duties on committees, he has access to classified information.
I am going to say that when you posted your comment "no clearance required" I honestly didn't know. So, I decided to check into this, because I found it impossible that they would have access to classified without, at a minimum, require an NDA. Perhaps the key word is "require". Further checking, I am unable to find that 2006 bill as to whether it actually passed. All I find is, what you stated earlier, that they take an "oath to secrecy" at various levels, depending on their role in congress. So, you appear to be correct that they don't necessarily require clearances - at least not in the conventional sense that ordinary government workers do.

So, that still leaves me with my standing question: What is this clearance Chaffetz talks about?
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
I am going to say that when you posted your comment "no clearance required" I honestly didn't know. So, I decided to check into this, because I found it impossible that they would have access to classified without, at a minimum, require an NDA. Perhaps the key word is "require". Further checking, I am unable to find that 2006 bill as to whether it actually passed. All I find is, what you stated earlier, that they take an "oath to secrecy" at various levels, depending on their role in congress. So, you appear to be correct that they don't necessarily require clearances - at least not in the conventional sense that ordinary government workers do.

So, that still leaves me with my standing question: What is this clearance Chaffetz talks about?
The one where he (pencil neck) gets a "clearance" to see certain types of TS stuff - if he pinky swears in blood that he won't tell.

Seriously, they get certain privilegesdue to their positions in Congress. A lot of them are not trustworthy, and I think they should not be affforded these privileges.
 
Reactions: BOP

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I am going to say that when you posted your comment "no clearance required" I honestly didn't know. So, I decided to check into this, because I found it impossible that they would have access to classified without, at a minimum, require an NDA. Perhaps the key word is "require". Further checking, I am unable to find that 2006 bill as to whether it actually passed. All I find is, what you stated earlier, that they take an "oath to secrecy" at various levels, depending on their role in congress. So, you appear to be correct that they don't necessarily require clearances - at least not in the conventional sense that ordinary government workers do.

So, that still leaves me with my standing question: What is this clearance Chaffetz talks about?
The 2006 bill did not pass - https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/747 It was introduced and referred to committee, nothing else happened.

I am not sure what Chaffetz is talking about. He might not be sure either, if challenged.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You can insult me if you want; I know this is your tactic when you have been challenged. I know you've been around here for a long and time and have earned respect for your past editorials and such, but that doesn't serve as a means you've earned some respect in disparaging people. That only shows you suck at debate.

Read the rest of the memo. It's obvious you didn't. I added this to my previous post:

"Mandate That Members of Congress Hold Security Clearances to Be Eligible for Access to Classified Information

This would mark a significant and unprecedented departure from the past. Members of Congress (as with the President and Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, or other federal court judges) have never been required to hold security clearances. Most of the proposals along this line appeared in the late 1980s, following charges and countercharges between the executive and legislative branches over unauthorized disclosure of classified information. A more recent bill, introduced in 2006, would have required a security clearance for Members serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Appropriations Committee. The resolution, however, did not specify which entity (in the legislative or executive branch) would conduct the background investigation or which officer (in Congress or in the executive) would adjudicate the clearances of Members."
Are these laws?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Are these laws?
I think the key words I didn't notice on first read are "would have required a security clearance". On second read, and more checking, it appears the law did not pass. There is a lot of talk coming from congress and our news media about congress having clearances to see classified. I think they really don't know what a REAL security clearance is since none of them have ever had one. They'd do all of us a favor by simply saying they pinky swear they won't divulge or mishandle classified. I wonder what the consequences are for violating these "oaths" they take regarding the protection of classified.

Given that congress has oversight over our agencies, I do think they should require access, but I also think they should be, at a minimum, "read in" to that information and given NDAs that come with criminal consequences for violating it. The problem is... unlike ordinary government workers that are hired and given extensive background investigations (some polygraphs) to determine their trustworthiness to handle classified, members of congress are elected by the people, and their trust is granted them by the voters. So, how can any background investigation disqualify them as elected people? If this were the case, my guess is none of them would pass a background check.
 
Top