Comrade Stinky: Can someone who cites Mensch please point me to the rules...

[dutch508]

Star Member Stinky The Clown (56,461 posts)

Can someone who cites Mensch please point me to the rules covering Members having . . . revocable security clearances?

Thank you.

Star Member Xipe Totec (38,320 posts)
1. Don't know about Mensch, never quoted her, never trusted her,

Though I did have a security clearance back in the days...

and any violation that would cause revocation of a security clearance also carried a hefty fine and years of prison.

So security clearance revocation was not, typically, a deterrent.

Star Member Stinky The Clown (56,461 posts)
3. You weren't a Member.

My question was about Members and their security clearances.

Aside from that I agree with your statement about security clearance revocations. That would be a BIG deal.

a member of what?

Star Member The Velveteen Ocelot (51,598 posts)
2. Members of Congress are not required to have and do not get security clearances.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
5. So the classified reports are routinely provided only to committees with responsibilities in the national security area. AND they only "receive preference" from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis.

That seems to leave the door wide open to the IC making a decision not to satisfy their requests -- especially for an individual like Nunes who is under active investigation by the Ethics Committee for mishandling classified information. Giving a "preference" is not the same as giving a "guarantee."

Star Member onenote (28,438 posts)
20. You forget two things: Nunes is the chair of the IC and the IC has a 13-9 repub majority.

So, in the real world, the likelihood of "the IC making a decision not to satisfy" a request by Nunes for access to secret information is basically zero.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
4. Members of Congress may have an automatic clearance to read classified documents connected with their position. They don't have to apply and get approval for it like other people.

The issue is whether a member of Congress could have his or her ability to view top secret or SCIF documents temporarily limited by the Ethics Committee while that person is being investigated by the committee for mishandling classified documents. I haven't seen any rule that addresses that situation.

Star Member Stinky The Clown (56,461 posts)
6. Would it, therefor, be a reasonable conclusion that Ms. Mensch is full of shit?

Star Member Stinky The Clown (56,461 posts)
12. That's procedural. Ms. Mensch contends his security clearance was revoke.

In other words, she's full of shit.

Of course, some aver that as a non US person, her terms and phrasing could be a bit askew.

I think they are talking about Nunes.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
13. No, you are misquoting her.

She clearly states that he retains his security clearance.

"Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information."

patribotics.com

Yup= talking about Nunes... who is under investigation by the ethics committee after he was alleged to violate laws[?] by a bunch of leftist dems... Yes-m the dems have 'weaponized' the congress...

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
17. Again, this is just hair-splitting semantics. He has clearance to read classified

documents. He just didn't obtain that clearance the way ordinary Americans do, by applying and getting approved.

The only question is whether his current investigation for mishandling documents could have resulted in the Ethics Committee or the IC temporarily limiting his access to top secret or SCIF documents.

Star Member The Velveteen Ocelot (51,598 posts)
22. It is not hair-splitting semantics. The CIA says in these exact words

that members of Congress do not require security clearances. In government and law words have specific meanings, called "terms of art," they do not engage in hair splitting or arguing over semantics. Words mean exact things. "Security clearance" has a specific meaning. It is something that is granted only following an extensive background check and completion and examination of a detailed questionnaire called a Form 86. After that:

"Human Resources will submit the completed security questionnaire and other required forms, also known as the security package, to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability. Once the security package is received by the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability, it will be reviewed for completeness, and the information will be formally entered into a case management system. National agency record checks and scanned fingerprint checks are then conducted. A case manager will direct the background investigation to cover key events and contacts from the individual’s past and present history. A critical step in the background investigation is the face-to-face interview the individual will have with a DS investigator." https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm

Members of Congress are exempted from these requirements. Their access to classified information is not granted because they have security clearances but because they are members of Congress. Their access is not, itself, a security clearance as that term is understood.

If Mensch had done some basic research about the process her "story" would not have said that Nunes had his (nonexistent) top secret security clearance revoked, but only that his committee had restricted his access to certain materials related to the Russia investigation. But that wouldn't have been nearly so juicy as click bait. It wouldn't have had people breathlessly retweeting her. It's kind of boring, actually.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
25. She was using verbal short-hand. You are hair-splitting.

It's like you've never read an article in the MSM that had a similar "error."

a more obvious attempt to move the goal posts of an arguement I've rarely seen.

Star Member The Velveteen Ocelot (51,598 posts)
28. Oh, bullpucky. She wasn't using "verbal shorthand."

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

She didn't make a mistake; she was flogging an inaccurate story to get hits on her blog and her Twitter account. It wouldn't have taken any more words to state that Nunes' committee had restricted his access to Russia material (even if that weren't true either) than it did for her to promote a false story that Nunes' TOP SECRET security clearance had been revoked.

Nice deke, though, from your original argument that Nunes really did have a security clearance even though he didn't, to claiming Mensch was just using verbal shorthand and made an "error."

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
23. So what? You quoted her and you quoted her incorrectly.

That site shows what she actually said.

And if you want to go to the site, then you can copy and paste.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
11. This is just semantics. They are cleared to read classified documents, which is another way of saying they have a security clearance.

But the main point is what you yourself linked to. They only "receive preference" to access classified documents. They aren't guaranteed the access.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf and https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm :

Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below."

Star Member The Velveteen Ocelot (51,598 posts)
14. Mensch claimed straight up that Nunes' TOP SECRET security clearance had been revoked.

That could not have been a true statement because Nunes never had a top secret or any other kind of security clearance; as a member of Congress he did not need one. Once again Mensch showed that she is ignorant about how government and legal procedures work, and apparently just took one of her "sources'" word for it without doing any checking. While it may be true that Nunes' committee has restricted his access, his so-called security clearance that he never had was never "revoked." You can call it just semantics if you want, but it's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't fact check or research her information. Five minutes on the Internet was enough to find a source that correctly explains why members of Congress don't receive or need security clearances. Mensch is a gossip monger and not a credible news source.

Added: It turns out (see below) that the committee itself can't restrict a member's access to materials. So however you want to characterize it semantically, Nunes has not lost access to anything that comes to his committee. Once again, Mensch has been making up sensational but unsupportable claims.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
46. SCIF is part of the highest level of classified -- it isn't all the same.

And you clearly couldn't be bothered reading the post.

Yes, the House intelligence committee haas its own SCIF. But -- because of the practice called 'compartmentalization" they cannot read all the SCIF documents of other agencies there. Why do you think Nunes had to go to the WH grounds to read certain SCIF documents? Because he couldn't read them in his own SCIF.


https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/27/did-devin-nunes-just-reveal-nsc-is-monitoring-agency-response-to-congress/

Nunes explained to Eli Lake he couldn’t use HPSCI’s own SCIF, just two miles away, because it didn’t have networked access to the reports that he was being shown.

In an interview Monday, Nunes told me that he ended up meeting his source on the White House grounds because it was the most convenient secure location with a computer connected to the system that included the reports, which are only distributed within the executive branch. “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress,” Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official.

SCIF doesn't have anything to do with classification. A Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF; pronounced "skiff") in United States military, national security/national defense and intelligence parlance, is an enclosed area within a building that is used to process Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) types of classified information.

Star Member Stinky The Clown (56,461 posts)
36. And we come full circle to my original thought:

Ms. Mensch is full of shit.

Thank you.

Good night.

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
40. Not really. It just shows many people don't understand about the SCIFs that are used for viewing the most secret materials -- and how access is restricted to them.

There are guards at the doors and codes must be entered. A member of Congress without the correct code would be barred from access.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9160299

Star Member pnwmom (82,990 posts)
47. Nunes is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for mishandling classified information. The intelligence agencies could have decided not to give him his "preference" for the time being.

 

[SVPete]

Star Member Stinky The Clown (56,461 posts)
12. That's procedural. Ms. Mensch contends his security clearance was revoke.

In other words, she's full of shit.

Of course, some aver that as a non US person, her terms and phrasing could be a bit askew.

I take it that this is an indicator that STC is trying to jam down DU MenschBots' throat the fact that she is a loon. He must be stopped!

[freedumb2003b]

I take it that this is an indicator that STC is trying to jam down DU MenschBots' throat the fact that she is a loon. He must be stopped!

How many business days ago was that sealed indictment against Trump?

[SVPete]

How many business days ago was that sealed indictment against Trump?

Mensch's dog ate the indictment?

[jukin]

How many business days ago was that sealed indictment against Trump?

european business day or American business day?

[DumbAss Tanker]

As anyone who has actually worked in intelligence, defense personnel, or surety programs could tell you, the immediate action when a person is suspected of having become unreliable or breaching security is 'Suspension,' which is supposed to give the authorities six months to investigate the problem and then either restore, continue the suspension, or proceed to revocation.  Revocation is a final step, not an initial one, and only rarely involves prosecution.

It's abundantly clear that every DUmmie claiming experience and familiarity with clearances in that thread is lying his or her ass off.

[freedumb2003b]

european business day or American business day?

If we go by European business days it could be the second coming before anything happens!

[Maverick1987]

How many business days ago was that sealed indictment against Trump?

The Marshal of the Supreme Court still has it in his possession and he's REALLY slow

[Maverick1987]

As anyone who has actually worked in intelligence, defense personnel, or surety programs could tell you, the immediate action when a person is suspected of having become unreliable or breaching security is 'Suspension,' which is supposed to give the authorities six months to investigate the problem and then either restore, continue the suspension, or proceed to revocation.  Revocation is a final step, not an initial one, and only rarely involves prosecution.

It's abundantly clear that every DUmmie claiming experience and familiarity with clearances in that thread is lying his or her ass off.

FIFY

[BattleHymn]

It's abundantly clear that every DUmmie claiming experience and familiarity with clearances in that thread is lying his or her ass off.

It's a thread full of Clouseaus inspecting the wax.