Officials Within WH Fail SF86, Trump Orders Swift Dismissal From Government Service
For those who bash Donald Trump’s immigration screenings as ineffective or racist, the president has proven them wrong by catching possible security risks within his walls.
On Wednesday, six White House staffers were dismissed from their duties for failing to pass FBI background checks. Some of the staffers were physically “walked out of the building by security” that very day.
All of those applying for national security positions in the government are required to fill out a 127-page questionnaire. Questions on it deal with, among other things, the applicant’s medical records, employment history, family history, substance abuse, and even credit history.
For Trump, often accused of nepotism and/or favoritism toward so-called loyalists, familial connections to those who labored on his campaign did not exempt them from leaving the White House. Caroline Wiles, the daughter of Trump’s Florida campaign manager was one of those removed from White House positions. Wiles, who would have served as deputy assistant secretary in the White House, resigned before the background check was finished.
The SF86 application, labeled the “Questionnaire for National Security Positions,” is used by the Office of Personnel Management and the FBI to investigate the answers given by applicants.
Several opponents of Trump’s immigration ban have regarded these supposed inner circle ousters as proof that the administration can’t effectively screen terrorists from entering the United States.
A tweeter going by the handle “ThatHawkwardGuy” expressed self-satisfaction about the ousters. Seeing them as some kind of vindication for leftists, he wrote, “Lmao the White House staff can’t even pass an FBI background check, but thinks it should be responsible for vetting immigrants.”
Another going by the moniker of “TheRealUbboUbbo” stated, “Staffers don’t have to pass the background check BEFORE they start working in White House? This is nuts.”
But in actuality these ousters make the case that the administration is capable of guarding both within and without potential security risks. This ouster embarrasses those who are considered reasonable voices in the White House who want to put the brakes on Trump’s immigration policies.
Before the inauguration, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus stated there was “no reason” to complete background checks on Trump’s cabinet appointments.
Priebus is considered one of those in the White House who supposedly is an enemy of the so-called anti-immigrant racist Steve Bannon.
Although Democrats, salivating over the intelligence community supposedly withholding intelligence information from the Trump White House because of potential security leaks–a claim which intelligence officials have denied–,have made the case that they are much better at catching security risks than the Republicans, should tread lightly, as history is not on their side.
Despite being warned by his own security officials that state department official Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy (later confirmed by Soviet documents), FDR dismissed this information with a wave of his hand. As a result of this negligence an actual government official leaking to the Soviets advanced up the career ladder from state department employee to being in charge of US security at the United Nations.
During the 1948 election, many liberal Democrats voted for third party candidate and FDR’s former Vice President Henry Wallace. The Soviet-friendly Wallace had, unknown to him, a number of KGB agents on his staff–staff members he fully intended to put on his cabinet had he won the White House (thankfully he didn’t).
Despite warnings from the FBI, Democratic president Harry Truman advanced Harry Dexter White (later revealed to have leaked information to the Soviet Union) up the career ladder, making White head of a government economic agency
On Obama’s watch, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and later a presidential candidate Obama endorsed, may have used a private email server to sell highly classified information in exchange for monetary favors.
Anonymous FBI agents then and now, have stated that because of her shady dealings with foreign nations and the easily hacked nature of her private emails, Clinton could have been subject to blackmail.
This was confirmed by the much-maligned FBI director James Comey when he testified before Congress that more than 100 of Clinton’s emails contained classified information making it “possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.” Comey stated that if hostile countries did hack the emails it would “cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.”
Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III wrote in a letter to the heads of congressional committees that he received sworn statements from two intelligence agencies that stated that emails found on Hillary Clinton’s server contained “Confidential, and Top Secret Special Access Program material.”
Former national security expert Alex Plitas stated that Clinton was fully aware of what she was doing and deserved jail time.
“First, there is no way that Hillary Clinton was unaware of either the risk of exposing information from one of the programs or how to appropriately transmit or store information derived from them via secure communications.
Second, Hillary would have had to have signed a form testifying that she understood this and the penalties for unauthorized disclosures and the danger that doing so posed to our national security when she was given access to the programs in question,” Plitas wrote.
During the campaign Trump famously or infamously, depending upon your point of view, stated that upon becoming president he would put Hillary in jail because of her email scandals. That hasn’t happened, but it is certain that, if appointed to his administration, the number of staffers fired would have included her.
For those Democrats who smack their lips over Trump having to fire the six staffers, they should refrain from any celebration. Trump’s appointments were screened, detected and removed in less than two months into his administration. By contrast, the Obama administration had a security risk as secretary of state for 4 years.