this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
257 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4191 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) dismissed the necessity of FBI background checks for Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees, claiming the public prioritizes implementing Trump’s policies over vetting appointees.

On ABC’s This Week, Hagerty criticized Biden officials and supported Trump’s expedited transition process, despite reports that many nominees, including Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, have bypassed FBI checks.

Moderator Jonathan Karl expressed concern over abandoning standard vetting practices, but Hagerty argued the FBI is “weaponized” and insisted checks would be completed quickly, though no evidence supports his claims of agency bias.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] benignintervention 33 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I had a top secret clearance in my old job. The whole process usually takes less than 9 months and anything outside a year usually means there's something fishy with your background. It boggles my mind that members of Congress aren't required to have security clearances and waiving background checks is completely insane. They're clearly hiding a lot of nefarious and dodgy crap that would otherwise disqualify them from office

[–] orclev 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The process must have slowed down considerably. About two decades ago I had a security clearance (just a basic one for access to some military bases for contract work) and that process, although the paperwork was a nightmare, got cleared in under 2 months. I'm sure a higher level of access takes longer, but equally someone being vetted for one of the highest offices in the world is certainly going to be a higher priority than some military contractor pleb.

[–] benignintervention 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

About a decade ago there was a huge Chinese hack into one of the security clearance contractors, who then lost the contract, so the final remaining contractor has been playing catch up ever since.

[–] sensiblepuffin 4 points 4 days ago

That was fucking insane. I remember being dumbfounded to learn that the clearance agency had fired all of the investigators from that contractor, only for a new contractor to rehire them all and win the contract to process clearances again. Horrorshow.

[–] sensiblepuffin 3 points 4 days ago

In my experience, if you're white, male, and have a semblance of your shit together, you'll be done in 6 months or less. I've seen minorities stuck in the process for years, despite having the squeaky-cleanest of records. (On the flip side, I heard a rumor that someone in the building recently got their reinvestigation processed successfully despite having recently received their 3rd DUI...) The exception to that is if you're in the military, as the government will have a record of anything you've ever done, and if you're an officer then you probably already have a clearance to begin with.