I have often heard talk show hosts say that Barrack Obama could not get a security clearance given his overseas family connections, and a similar situation probably exists for Donald Trump given his overseas investments and business connections. Likewise members of congress are required to handle classified information, especially those on oversight committees for intelligence agencies even though their backgrounds may prevent them from holding a federal job that requires a security clearance.
Should candidates for federal office be required to get security clearance in order to get on the ballot?
No, that would be giving the executive branch a veto on the ballot in the case of congressional candidates and be a great way for a sitting President to keep possible opponents to himself or his parties candidate off the ballot in the case of a Presidential candidate.
I agree, but federal bureaucrats at FBI and other intelligence agencies seem to believe they have the right to override the results of free and fair elections. Would it be better to formalize their (claimed) veto power?
I have often heard talk show hosts say that Barrack Obama could not get a security clearance given his overseas family connections, and a similar situation probably exists for Donald Trump given his overseas investments and business connections. Likewise members of congress are required to handle classified information, especially those on oversight committees for intelligence agencies even though their backgrounds may prevent them from holding a federal job that requires a security clearance.
Should candidates for federal office be required to get security clearance in order to get on the ballot?
Or should voters be allowed to make their own judgements about candidates even when they may have security risks?
I think that anybody with a clearance who intentionally or through negligence exposes classified material should be criminally charged. If convicted of a felony, they should be removed from office, and should be ineligible for federal offices for life.
Wouldn’t this be a fantastic way for a corrupt, and politically partisan government, with the aid of their deep state cronies, to police who can, and cannot be elected to public office?
Additionally, I’m not aware of any elected federal offices that “require” security clearance. Neither the President nor members of Congress hold clearances.
These foreign entities sought to sow chaos, doubt with the election process. It has been going on for decades, it’s not a politically partisan effort, where only one political party is singled out.
No single political party is immune from this meddling, every candidate and campaign was messed with. Both the Trump and Clinton campaigns received their share of meddling. So do not try and pretend it was just pro-Trump effort.
The worst offenders to cast doubt on the election process has been the US Democratic Party.
Between casting doubt on the validity and fairness of state primaries, caucuses, and the Electoral College, and now claiming the Russians can manipulate the actual votes being counted, the Democrats have done more damage than the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and North Koreans could ever hope to do.
Yep, but at least formally requiring approval of the surveillance agencies would prevent them from coming back and trying to invalidate the election results.
It works in Iran; their “Guardian Council” has to approve all candidates. They don’t want those pesky voters making a “bad” decision.
