Do you think any of our current politicians could pass a serious background investigation today if running for President?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:27:39 -0400

With all the mud slinging and the digging deep into the past and background of all our current candidates, future potential candidates, or current individuals serving in Congress or Government today, would anybody be able to pass the litness test of purity in America to hold the highest office or for any office as a matter of fact?

Most of them wouldn't qualify for a Top Secret Clearance or would they be granted one anyway?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 2 at 2016 11:29 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:29:42 -0400

I'm certain that many of them could. The standards aren't as rigorous as maybe they should be. However, it's now obvious that Hillary Clinton couldn't

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Nov 2 at 2016 11:33 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:33:49 -0400

I think when it really comes down to it. Many US citizens would fail to pass an in depth and serious background investigation. but the majority of the country isn't running for president.

Response by PO2 Kristy Williams made Nov 2 at 2016 11:40 AM

PO2 Kristy Williams — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:40:00 -0400

Meh. I think actually most of us would be fine passing a background check. Have I done stupid things? Yes. Criminal? No. would I wanna run for president? Hell no.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2016 11:54 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:54:31 -0400

Not Hillary Clinton if she were me I would be in the same block as PFC 'I want to be Cher' traitor Manning

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Nov 2 at 2016 11:55 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:55:12 -0400

What about if that was extended to the voting public? Can you picture what it would look like if passing a DoD Background check was required to vote? Maybe there would be less tin foil hats out there.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 2 at 2016 12:13 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:13:37 -0400

I think they'd be granted one anyway. I was surprised to learn Huma Abedin had/has a TS clearance, after learning she spent her formative years 2-18 living in Saudi Arabia. I can't spend a week in the Bahamas with my wife without reporting it and getting questioned.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2016 12:14 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:14:00 -0400

I'm so happy something with the top secret clearance challenged Miss Clinton of course she did some I'm so happy something with the top secret clearance challenged Miss Clinton of course she did some tap dance but the fact is she has 20 years of experience but the state Department's been known for being sloppy I know a colonel who worked the Beltway who said that Department Security and the Marine security used to do joint patrols within the Department of State and they stopped it because it was blatant sloppiness on the Department of State on securing their confidential and classified material so that kind of culture is what she's been used to for 20 years so she wasn't sorry she just didn't care. But if any armed forces person did this they would go to jail lose their career and be at Fort Leavenworth.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 2 at 2016 12:29 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:29:39 -0400

Depends on what is meant by BI, as a former member of the military that held the highest clearance possible for years, I would say yes and many have. If you're talking a dirt searching group that can mislead the public, using information gleaned from unreliable sources, covering the totality of their lives, absolutely not.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2016 12:35 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:35:05 -0400

Honestly, to be put on the ballot, they should be required to pass a background check. If they can't pass a background check, they don't belong in government. Along with a term limits amendment, make a background check mandatory.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 2 at 2016 12:38 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:38:03 -0400

In general, yes they could.

I used to hand out the paperwork for SSBI, and my in brief was "The US Government DOES NOT CARE what you did in the past. If you #$% sheep, tell them. What they care about is if you LIE about $^$^ sheep."

The problem is that the investigators poll personal acquaintances (work and private) for trustworthiness, not the general public, which results in higher "confidence" than if it was done the other way around.

When it comes to elected officials and classified (et al), they are granted clearances "by virtue of position" not because of trustworthiness though. The President gets one because he is the President, and the PEOPLE say he gets one. The Cabinet Members get one because they were confirmed by the Senate, not because they passed a background check. So on and so forth. It's not until we get below a certain level does the background check apply.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Nov 2 at 2016 12:45 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:45:53 -0400

Probably not, unless the greased the right palms.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2016 12:47 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:47:57 -0400

Yes because of corruption. They would hide and buy people off.

Response by MSgt Richard Randall made Nov 2 at 2016 1:20 PM

MSgt Richard Randall — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:20:30 -0400

Unless standards have changed very few could pass a rigorous background check. My dad called me one day and asked if I had gotten in some kind of trouble. I laughed and said, “No, why do you ask?” He said my old high school principal had called him to ask him the same thing. The principal said the FBI had interviewed him and a couple of my old teachers and coaches about me but wouldn’t say why. Then it dawned on me, I was going through a review and upgrade to my T/S. Being a SAC trained PRP nuke certified killer I guess the government didn’t want somebody who habitually robbed 7-11s, kept classified on my Commodore 64 or grabbed females by the snoochie.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 2 at 2016 1:46 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:46:39 -0400

What level? Yes, most could pass but the key is telling the truth up front.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Nov 2 at 2016 1:46 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:46:52 -0400

no, they'd probably have to build a new jail to house all of the perpetrators of criminal activities discovered

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2016 1:49 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 13:49:45 -0400

Sir,
Daniel 6:3-5 a=says it all, we need more people like him.
"Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.”

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Nov 2 at 2016 2:29 PM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:29:21 -0400

no. but if elected it becomes a moot question. they don't have to.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2016 2:38 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:38:53 -0400

It's a damn shame that they have one since the point is to be trustworthy and not be able to be blackmailed.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Nov 2 at 2016 3:44 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:44:13 -0400

With the advent of today's technology, the stupidity of the individual and the propensity to record all of their misdeeds for posterity I would say .05% would be about the pool of applicants and even then the screening would find something. As for clearances most wouldn't be fit for unclassified.

Response by LT Michael Watson made Nov 2 at 2016 4:39 PM

LT Michael Watson — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:39:32 -0400

Would they be given the access if they were a normal Joe/Jane, probably not. Will they be granted access as a result of their office, unfortunately yes. Will they live a life that adheres to the tenets of the clearance, I'll let you decide. I have lived and worked in the "black" world now for over thirty years, and it is a very challenging environment that those who wish to show how "smart" they are have a very difficult time keeping their mouths closed.

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Nov 2 at 2016 5:35 PM

SSG Mark Franzen — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:35:23 -0400

Maybe some could But I think that they should have a Back ground Check before going into the senate and also I think it should be a Requirement before running for office.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 2 at 2016 5:38 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:38:45 -0400

They have to pass a thorough background investigation in order to be seriously considered for President of the USA COL Mikel J. Burroughs.
The game is rigged to some degree since Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin all had the highest level of state department clearance. Don'r forget about Anthony Weiner as well.
Administrations get a certain amount of leeway in who they allow into their inner circle. Since the administration sets the rules, waivers can be granted.

Response by PO3 Michael James made Nov 2 at 2016 6:13 PM

PO3 Michael James — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:13:46 -0400

NO !!

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 2 at 2016 8:27 PM

SFC George Smith — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:27:31 -0400

the Facal matter would be deep if they had to Go thru one like the rest of us did...

Response by PO3 Rod Arnold made Nov 2 at 2016 11:16 PM

PO3 Rod Arnold — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 23:16:53 -0400

Thanks COL, now I have coffee running out of my nose. I doubt most could get past basic classified!!!

Response by PO2 Sybil "TT" I. made Nov 3 at 2016 5:44 AM

PO2 Sybil "TT" I. — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 05:44:14 -0400

Sure, some. But, I'm confident a good many couldn't. lol

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Nov 4 at 2016 9:33 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Fri, 04 Nov 2016 09:33:08 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Nope. I think they would all be forced out of office because they would not be able to view anything more classified than used toilet paper. Some would end the background check with charges being filed against them. Others would just fade away. As with anything there would be a few exceptions, but in general, they would fail.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Nov 4 at 2016 5:15 PM

SSgt Robert Marx — Fri, 04 Nov 2016 17:15:31 -0400

I think qualifying laws should be passed for all candidates into the federal system. No one facing any type of indictment or charges (certainly criminal charges) should be allowed to run for office.

Response by SFC Mark Connolly made Nov 4 at 2016 6:55 PM

SFC Mark Connolly — Fri, 04 Nov 2016 18:55:25 -0400

Definitely neither of the 2 front runners.

Response by SFC Dennis A. made Nov 5 at 2016 5:25 PM

SFC Dennis A. — Sat, 05 Nov 2016 17:25:54 -0400

I would like to hope so but I've drastically lost a lot of faith in them over the past several years.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Nov 6 at 2016 8:58 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Sun, 06 Nov 2016 08:58:55 -0500

Sir I would support this, but I know good and damn well that they'd only show as little as possible, they would get lawyers to clear their names out of the major internet search engines, and some aren't stupid, they know enough to create a "new" former them. My biggest gripe about this would be Cruz. You are 44 or 45 of foreign birth and have been to elected office in TX. That is real;y a non issue except he has dual citizenship. How can you go that long and not know it, but "suddenly" you are, and you do everything to sever it? While I used Cruz as the example, he is FAR from the worst. I have another gripe; with us getting a clearance, SSO's amd S2's see the flags and can notify the proper unit this is messed up or that is messed up. There really is nowhere and no one to report this to for legislators. I'm going to use Trump as my example on this: You use the laws to support your four bankruptcies, and again no problem. BUT on my last investigation, I was asked and luckily it was no, but the investigator said it would've been hard to get a clearance if you've had one depending on circumstances. That was ONE....now explain to an investigator four. Shady dealings that are cloudy at best, pea soup at worst, should be an instant red flag being you ARE directly asked. If the individual being investigated won't divulge business or contacts, can't or won't give up what it is or was doing to, the investigation should stop right there. My example's are HRC and Trump. An investigation should be done at random, the second a candidate announces a run for federal office to include being a janitor. I know in INSCOM, all of our janitors had TS and above clearances. Some were troops assigned there. Should some of the "defense mechanisms" used to shield or smokescreen are found, that person is instantly made to put up the info or be banned, just like the rest of us, and they cannot hold office higher than state ever again. If it is like HRC and Trump, charges should be brought on them, and let the courts dish out punishment.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2016 5:44 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Nov 2016 17:44:39 -0500

In response to your very interesting question, I would think that maybe 50% or more in both the House and Senate wouldn't past a serious TSI and BCI if they had to do it today, just a few days from the election. I also think that both Presidential candidates would fail the test too!

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Nov 7 at 2016 9:49 AM

SFC Randy Purham — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 09:49:57 -0500

Yes, they would be able to pass because they would ensure they look out for each other to be able to pass it. Whatever comes to light after the fact is merely collateral damage and speculation - because they "passed a background check."

Response by Sgt William Straub Jr. made Nov 8 at 2016 9:37 AM

Sgt William Straub Jr. — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 09:37:51 -0500

Based on criteria present when I underwent a background check for my TS, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton would not pass a security Clearance investigation. I think G.W.Bush may have scraped by. If you aren't trustworthy, honest, or have integrity you shouldn't be given one. It's amazing to me that the leader of the free world couldn't pass a security clearance and still be CinC and have access to intelligence, strategy, and nuclear codes.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Nov 8 at 2016 11:57 AM

PO2 Pete Haga — Tue, 08 Nov 2016 11:57:30 -0500

NOT A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL!

Response by SPC Phil Norton made Nov 9 at 2016 4:52 PM

SPC Phil Norton — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 16:52:55 -0500

No in today's world there's no where they can't go to dig up dirt. And if lewd talking could be a non qualifying item. Then my answer stays the same. Everyone would be a bigot misogynist racist. We have all said things at one point or another no matter what race we are that could paint us as I stated above. Everyone has used a racial slur at some point but this doesn't make us racist. I was taught in the Army that everyone is prejudice, and it's true first impressions is a form of prejudice. Every human is flawed therefore every candidate will be flawed

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Nov 9 at 2016 5:44 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:44:12 -0500

Well background checks only pertain to criminal convictions not necessarily to allegations, innuendo, mud slinging, etc. So yes most in office today would pass a background investigation or they would not be in office.

Response by LT Chris Vansickle made Nov 9 at 2016 11:49 PM

LT Chris Vansickle — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 23:49:40 -0500

Interesting thought...as Commmander in Chief, seems like a plausible requirement.

Response by LCpl Todd Houston made Nov 10 at 2016 3:16 AM

LCpl Todd Houston — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 03:16:44 -0500

You are so right. None of them could pass getting 'extreamely vetted' to borrow a phrase. Yes, they would be given the top secret clearance anyway. Hell, we've done it already. But there is one thing i just don't get. Everyone, dems and reps complained about Trump being the best we had to come up with. When we put up Mitt Romney, we had a guy that didn't drink, smoke, cuss, went to church every sunday, had experience, was just an honest to God all around good guy. And we threw him under the bus because he was a Morman. But Obama was elected because he was black. Hillary was almost elected just because shes a woman. In Trump we deserve what we get, good and bad!!! He was the candidate the conservatives HAD to put up for election. Kinda like all the cheerleaders dating the football players because they are the bad boys in school. Then all the good guys are left scratching their heads. Almost as if the more of a jerk the guy is, the prettier the girl he dates.??? Trump is the quarterback here just in case you didn't see it.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Dec 27 at 2016 7:10 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:10:47 -0500

I'm not so sure many of our politicians could pass a security check. John Kerry for instance. I was in the Navy River Patron in Vietnam for 915 days. On December 13th 1968 to of my friends were killed when swift boat number 44 ran away in a firefight. Petty Officers Jim Lewis and Tom Eldridge were killed because Lieutenant JG John Kerry ran away. Later the illustrious Mister Kerry was forced to resign his commission because he deserted his post in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Regardless of his somewhat shady past, he ran for President of the United States on the Democratic ticket, and later became Secretary of State under Barrack Obama. I guess laws are for us common folks---not the Gods.

Response by Maj Rob Drury made Dec 28 at 2016 2:57 AM

Maj Rob Drury — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 02:57:57 -0500

For certain, hillary couldn't. Just the violations to which she's ADMITTED would be sufficient to deny probably a TS; most certainly an SCI.

Response by SFC Dante Alanis made Dec 28 at 2016 1:49 PM

SFC Dante Alanis — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:49:32 -0500

I know that if I had the same history as many of them, including several presidents, I wouldn't have passed.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 1:50 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 13:50:36 -0500

Most would qualify, few would not. The question that came to my mind is, how many congress members ever lost their TSC and the reason for the loss?

Response by SP5 Robert Ruck made Dec 28 at 2016 2:09 PM

SP5 Robert Ruck — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:09:37 -0500

I carried a Top Secret clearance through most of my civilian career. I believe an awful lot of today's politicians would have a tough time with a rest clearance.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 2:15 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:15:24 -0500

My guess is that "typical" politicians could NOT qualify for a Top Secret Clearance and several of them were granted the access (Congress) despite their lack of qualifications. Likewise many of the staffs of typical politicians have accesses they should NOT possess.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 2:25 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:25:54 -0500

Well, I sort of feel like Groucho Marks when he said "I would not want to belong to any club that would lower its standards enough to accept me" Not sure I got the quote 100% corrcet but I got his intent.

I passed a very stringent security check Sooooo. They can't be that hard to pass.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 2:29 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:29:01 -0500

A good friend of mine stated (in error) that he was visiting Germany and working in the U.S. during the same time frame. It was of course questioned. He said he really wanted to tell them that it was right but that it was a hellava commute, but thought better.

Response by Austin Hocutt made Dec 28 at 2016 2:50 PM

Austin Hocutt — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:50:39 -0500

A few of them would pass but most of them would fail miserably.

Response by MAJ Alan Reiter made Dec 28 at 2016 4:02 PM

MAJ Alan Reiter — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:02:26 -0500

Prior to the date when I was deployed overseas, when my unit was placed on alert in August 1990, I was assigned a Temporary TS security clearance after a FBI investigation. I was required to take classes and briefings on the care and use of TS material and so attest to that fact by signing many document including one which requires me to get permission to publish any material that could be thought of as classified. The investigation found information about my family that I was not aware of including the fact that my mom was not a native born American citizen. I was sent to the Kuwait Theater of operation and assigned to the staff of DCSTRANS 22nd Field Army Support Command where I worked with highly classified material. I do not think that our elected officials take serious the importance of this material and the harm it could do to our nation. I also do not think that many of our political appointees even care about OPSEC and most likely wouldn't be able to qualify for a Top Secret Clearance if the had to go through the investigation I went through in 1990.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 5:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:34:22 -0500

I believe it would be 50/50. Not all politicans are evil back stabbing lowlif people. There are politicans that are honest and try to do what they think is best for the seat they hold.

Response by PFC James Craft made Dec 28 at 2016 6:59 PM

PFC James Craft — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:59:17 -0500

I can think of two.

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Dec 28 at 2016 7:06 PM

A1C Charles D Wilson — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:06:44 -0500

Yes. I think you would find two in good standing would be Mr. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. The man is a beast with the laws and stands his ground proper if any one would. Another would be Mr. Chaffetz as well. But both these guys should be A.G. and or on the Supreme Court Justice just from my perspective. But what do I know I am a bottom man on the ladder of life. Watch some the you tube videos of Gowdy and you should get the general idea. They are both beast.

Chuck D
Salute 07

Response by PFC Timothy Ahern made Dec 28 at 2016 10:13 PM

PFC Timothy Ahern — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 22:13:21 -0500

Definitely not

Response by MAJ Dick Farnsworth made Dec 29 at 2016 12:01 PM

MAJ Dick Farnsworth — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 12:01:03 -0500

Did it occur to anyone else that the reason Joe Biden hasn't run is that he has a skeleton in his closet somewhere?

Response by Sgt James Baxley made Dec 29 at 2016 2:39 PM

Sgt James Baxley — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 14:39:26 -0500

A Better question is could congress pass a background check or drug screen. I firmly believe if our service members are held to a standard so should congress and their staff.

Response by Sgt Greg Wilcox made Dec 29 at 2016 5:21 PM

Sgt Greg Wilcox — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:21:44 -0500

To put in a nutshell - NO. I was the Security Manager for a Military Inyelligence Group, as such I was in charge of personnel security for SCIF's and SAP's, neither one could pass the Polygraph for the SAP or the DCID 6/4 for the SCI indoctrination. I personally recommended to my boss (COL) that he revoke the clearances for instances involving a lot less than one of the candidates were excused of. I am sure the ones I am speaking could always play the "Hillary Defense"

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Dec 29 at 2016 7:16 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:16:54 -0500

Trump for sure Obama....he still hasn't!

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Dec 30 at 2016 11:07 AM

Maj Marty Hogan — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:07:22 -0500

Great question. I don't think many past Presidents could have held up to the scrutiny. We have had some shady characters lead our Nation. Always comes back to the does it affect the way they lead and the decisions they make? History shows many solid leaders did some very undesirable things by today's standards. This string could last forever if we took them apart one by one COL Mikel J. Burroughs

Response by Pmc Mcb made Dec 30 at 2016 2:58 PM

Pmc Mcb — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:58:53 -0500

I've passed FBI, SBI, and regular bg checks. As many pies as politician's have their fingers in, I kind of doubt even 1% of them could. Especially for high level Clearances.

Response by SGT James Colwell made Jan 2 at 2017 9:51 AM

SGT James Colwell — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 09:51:03 -0500

This depends on the definition of purity. Biblically speaking, nobody can pass a purity litmus test. On the other hand, civil authority requirements are not defined in the Bible. Only Church leadership defines the requirements for those offices. Are there decent people who would return honor and respect to the highest office, and to Congress and other public offices? I have to hope and pray that there are some out there. But are there any who can truly pass a purity test? I would say no.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2017 7:10 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:10:27 -0500

One of the really stupid things about the US is that we put people in charge of our government who couldn't keep a secret if their life depended on it. But as Col Joseph Lenertz said, once elected they and their cronies will be given clearances.

Maybe what we need is an addendum to the paperwork we sign when given a clearance. It needs to spell out in terms that even a politician can understand the responsibilities accepted when you are granted a clearance. I suggest we call it the Hillary Addendum.

1) I understand that if I reveal classified information, even if it only rises to the level of Careless, but not Criminal, I am guilty of treason.
2) I understand that classified information that I receive remains classified even if I instruct my staff to delete classification markings before sending it to me.
3) I understand that anything I do that transfers classified information to any system connected to the Internet counts as if I had emailed it to Kim Jong Un and Valdimir Putin.
4) I understand that releasing classified information to donors, foreign or domestic, or using such information to secure reelection is a crime, even if I believe my value to the government exceeds the value of the information I released.
5) In signing this addendum, I hereby tender my resignation from the office to which I have been elected, appointed, named as czar, or inherited because my predecessor didn't understand this addendum, effective on the date at which I violated the security agreement.

Did I miss anything?

Response by 1LT Hugh Ghormley made Jan 10 at 2017 8:31 AM

1LT Hugh Ghormley — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:31:53 -0500

Most of them wouldn't qualify for a carry permit in my state. I'm uncomfortable with the whole class of folks the international bankers support, fund, and promote for office. It gets us candidates like Hillary and Trump.

Response by Donald Allen made Jan 10 at 2017 3:48 PM

Donald Allen — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:48:39 -0500

Subject every candidate to an SBI/SCI Full Lifestyle Poly, and make the results public. It should be quite a show !!!

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Jan 11 at 2017 12:48 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:48:08 -0500

Some I think got clearance due in part because of political correctness. Somebody didn't have cajones to deny
them because their job may be on line.
To me it's on line if they do give it to them. Sen. Clinton only got vetted because of her husband. I would have dug deeper and sure I could find a reason to deny her, which means she'd of never got on armed services committee.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jan 20 at 2017 11:23 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:23:04 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner…This is a no brainer, No. Elected officials are vetted by the public in the election process. If the people that elect them this they are OK, they are OK. The Term "politicians" was used which by definition to me means elected. Appointed public officials should be vetted and ran through the same background checks as we in California run a fire arms purchase.

Response by Sgt William Straub Jr. made Jan 26 at 2017 11:50 AM

Sgt William Straub Jr. — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:50:26 -0500

I must say that as an E-1 I had to pass a background investigation for a TS clearance. I have serious doubts whether Bush 43, either Clinton, Obama, or even Trump would qualify for TS. I doubt either of the Clintons, Obama or Trump could even qualify for Secret. And they all have or had, with the exception of Hillary the ability to access all classified information and the Nuclear codes. I doubt that Bill Clinton could have even qualified for a minimal clearance. And with the continuing questions about Obama's birth who knows? I find it hard to believe that Obama wasn't a born American citizen, it would need to have the cover up by all the intelligence agencies and the FBI. someone would have come forward. At least I would hope so.

Response by Mark Kinchen made Jan 31 at 2017 6:56 AM

Mark Kinchen — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:56:51 -0500

They need to in order to the position. I doubt that many would though.

Response by MCPO Ed Jernigan made Feb 9 at 2017 12:21 PM

MCPO Ed Jernigan — Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:21:03 -0500

This is a good one. Our government does not do a good job with background checks or Obama would never have been selected as President. Case closed on that one. Many of our government officials are clueless about security clearances and abuse them. They only care about themselves and will do anything they can to abuse our system. We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the laws already on the books. That would eliminate many of the problems inside our government.

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Feb 15 at 2017 3:39 PM

SPC Brian Stephens — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:39:54 -0500

Yes.

Response by SSG Brian MacBain made Feb 23 at 2017 7:28 AM

SSG Brian MacBain — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:28:50 -0500

Well, if Bill Clinton could, if Hillary Clinton "could" when she ran for office and if Obama could, then congress can.

Response by MSgt Jonathan Stump made Feb 23 at 2017 11:06 AM

MSgt Jonathan Stump — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:06:49 -0500

Uhm, no. 100,000% percent incorrect. Lets break it down to someone that seems to worship at the altar of government.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

I do not see anything in there about passing a security clearance. Which other tests are there? Spoken like a true statist. Just like the rest of the federal government that has gotten involved in things that they have ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO BE IN.

Let me guess, you are pining for Trump to release those tax returns? Hell, why not have EVERYONE'S tax returns public? Do you have something to hide?

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Mar 13 at 2017 12:19 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:19:01 -0400

They say NO! If honesty and goodness were prerequisites for serving in public office not many would pass. Bankruptcies, illegal real estate deals, association with the Mob, insider trading etc. and this is just Harry Reid.

Response by SPC Johnney Abbott made May 2 at 2017 9:27 AM

SPC Johnney Abbott — Tue, 02 May 2017 09:27:33 -0400

I think there are a lot of skeletons that have yet to come out on all of the politicians. They just haven't found the right key.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2017 9:42 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 May 2017 09:42:14 -0400

Im a firm believer that even if they did pass, the mistakes and/or slip-ups from their past will come to light. The bad is always highlighted in these situations by opposing party's. So i would say its not the background check most of these select people have to worry about, but their actions of character and display of humility that most will criticize them on.

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made May 2 at 2017 10:17 AM

SGT Eric Knutson — Tue, 02 May 2017 10:17:56 -0400

Well, I for one actually found it amusing when that story broke about the Pentagon, or somewhere within one of the branches, had that power point about what a potential security leak looks like and they had that horrible woman shown and listed as a person who should NOT be trusted. I myself served under slick Willie and while we gave him the respect due to the office, I personally did not know anyone who trusted him or his wife.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made May 2 at 2017 10:23 AM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Tue, 02 May 2017 10:23:15 -0400

I think our eyes were opened for the first time when the Clinton's began staffing the White House (not Clinton bashing just using for illustration). The Clintons fought background checks on a lot of their "friendly appointees". The FBI eventually was over-ruled on the requirements of a clean NAC and interviews since the overseer of the background checks was the Office of Special Counsel to the President. They appointed incompetent people to oversee the White House Travel Office because they didn't want anyone that they didn't know, talking "out-of-school". I'm sure that this wasn't the only administration for this to happen but this was the first one I remember these issues coming to light.

Response by SFC William H. made May 2 at 2017 10:37 AM

SFC William H. — Tue, 02 May 2017 10:37:59 -0400

If I was the one doing the investigation, the only one that would be recommended would be the "American Eagle" in your question. In answer to your second question , everybody gets a clearance since Bill Clinton maneuvered himself in there; deserving of not!

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made May 2 at 2017 10:46 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 02 May 2017 10:46:50 -0400

VOAnews.

Neither congressman has a security clearance, nor does Trump. “Security clearances are not mandated for the president, vice president, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, or other constitutional officers,” the Congressional Research Service recently reported, citing constitutional criteria.
The president-elect began receiving classified intelligence briefings on Tuesday. He has made it clear he wants Kushner present at those briefings, along with retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who has been offered the job of national security adviser.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2017 11:27 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 May 2017 11:27:53 -0400

No one person is perfect. We've all done things in our past we aren't proud of and would be embarrassed if the public knew about. Same for Politicians. I know I could pass a background check, I have in the past to get a TS/BI for the Army job I did for 7 years. I think I could now. Could Politicians do the same? I think most could, but there are some I don't think could. Should that be a requirement to hold such a prestigious office? I think so because if the type of information that could cross their desk might be sensitive in nature to our security as a nation. If they can't pass a background investigation they shouldn't be allowed to hold that office.

Response by LT Brad McInnis made May 2 at 2017 11:49 AM

LT Brad McInnis — Tue, 02 May 2017 11:49:58 -0400

They may pass the investigation, but I have yet to see a politician that hasn't released "stuff" they shouldn't have after in office. So, pass maybe, maintain/safeguard definitely not... FWIW, I had TS SCI, full background check.

Response by PO3 Greg Gehrke made May 2 at 2017 8:34 PM

PO3 Greg Gehrke — Tue, 02 May 2017 20:34:12 -0400

I passed my BG check...Just a secret clearance, but that is the Min on Sibs. My Dad told me ALL these spooks were questioning my HS friends etc while I was in Sub school

Response by COL Charles Williams made May 2 at 2017 11:42 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 02 May 2017 23:42:29 -0400

Yes, Yes, Yes... We all had to, or have to...

Response by Sgt John H. made May 3 at 2017 9:58 PM

Sgt John H. — Wed, 03 May 2017 21:58:37 -0400

The funny thing is that political positions generally have less stringent requirements than law enforcement positions. You would think that the president should be held to the same standards that we hold our policemen to.

Response by SPC Douglas Bolton made May 4 at 2017 5:06 PM

SPC Douglas Bolton — Thu, 04 May 2017 17:06:36 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs it would be extremely hard to do background checks on politicians. They have too many people in their pockets that find way to help them cover up. That said, I think we would have some that could pass a check.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2017 8:36 AM

Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 May 2017 08:36:30 -0400

Great question, Col. !

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2017 9:01 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 May 2017 09:01:41 -0400

What a question COL Mikel J. Burroughs! I think about this every time something new comes out in the fake news! It's unbelievable how some of the things that come to light in the past of Presidential candidates and Presidents disqualify the average Joe from Federal positions and potentially deny them clearances.
I wonder why we flip out when an offhand comment comes to light? I have made several statements to close friends that I regret and I would not appreciate if they made national "news".

Response by Samantha S. made May 8 at 2017 10:27 AM

Samantha S. — Mon, 08 May 2017 10:27:38 -0400

Reading through the comments from those who hold security clearance, it is clear when being submitted to or continue to hold any level of clearance is Don't Lie, being the case then we should have a VERY LIMITED Government in both houses.

Response by Sgt Albert Castro made May 8 at 2017 11:06 AM

Sgt Albert Castro — Mon, 08 May 2017 11:06:48 -0400

Current politicians Col Burroughs? I have been very politically in the last 4 years and honestly I don't know if I can trust any politician anymore. Our political system has become so bastardized the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. In all fairness, I know some politicians are still honest dudes but, they are very few. Keep background checks "position specific" and have competent agencies running backgrounds. Some will pass and some may go to the brig. LMAO

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made May 8 at 2017 11:25 AM

SSG Edward Tilton — Mon, 08 May 2017 11:25:51 -0400

Maybe we need new politicians

Response by MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan made May 8 at 2017 11:47 AM

MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan — Mon, 08 May 2017 11:47:14 -0400

I can only reply with the old cliche, "Ya' gotta do the best ya' can with what ya' got". In this era of post "free love, drugs, sex and rock and roll" brought on by the hippies we will forever find our society lacking in both those who do not have a past and those who want to destroy in the name of ideology. What we have to discern in this is that we have to pick the individuals who are willing to put country above party or personal life, who have shown a willingness to work with others, and have at their core the conviction to "protect and defend these United States".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2017 1:42 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 May 2017 13:42:33 -0400

I've processed too many clearance packets in my 13 years as a 35F. This is primarily what they look for:

Debt - if you're actively working to pay it off they're ok. If you're not. Nope.
Drug use - If you experimented a couple times in high school ok. If you admit to being a habitual drug user nope. Had a guy admit to drug use prior to the Army. His interim was denied pretty quickly. I don't think he got his final from CCF.

Those are the big two they look at when they determine who gets a clearance. Foreign travel plays a part yes - but it depends on what it was and all that. It might take your investigation a little longer if you have foreign family.

Depends on what might get found out about current elected representatives.

No one is "pure" and everyone has had some kind of issue in their life whether minor or major. No one is perfect and to expect our elected representatives to be perfect is pretty ridiculous. I know some guy was running somewhere and he posted all his dirty laundry on his website so his opponent couldn't use it against him.

Response by Stephanie Jones made May 8 at 2017 3:37 PM

Stephanie Jones — Mon, 08 May 2017 15:37:14 -0400

I think it would be worth doing. Nonetheless, I agree they would probably get the security clearance anyways.

Response by Sgt Bruce C. made May 8 at 2017 3:51 PM

Sgt Bruce C. — Mon, 08 May 2017 15:51:50 -0400

It still comes down to who you know, Washington inter circle

Response by MSG Mark Million made May 9 at 2017 2:03 PM

MSG Mark Million — Tue, 09 May 2017 14:03:43 -0400

Honest answer, is that in the current political climate, I am unsure that anyone could pass such an assessment. How could we ensure that those doing the investigation would truly do so impartially or that those above them would not somehow cause a candidate they dislike to fail. I would like to see the investigation done, but with published facts found and no pass/fail. This would allow for independent investigation. Not to mention that nowhere in the constitution are there any such disqualifying factors associated with the presidency. If this were implemented as a pass fail, at what point might it become a glass ceiling or bar to entry for those who would traditionally be eligible. I don't believe this would be a good idea.

Response by Samantha S. made May 11 at 2017 2:33 PM

Samantha S. — Thu, 11 May 2017 14:33:50 -0400

Just yesterday our President tweeted: "Connecticut, Blumenthal would talk of his great bravery and conquests in Vietnam - except he was never there."

Response by MSgt Jonathan Stump made May 18 at 2017 2:42 PM

MSgt Jonathan Stump — Thu, 18 May 2017 14:42:57 -0400

Yes, they would. Because they do not have to pass the background check. The background check was the voting booth.