James Comey, dead man walking

[Stacko]

Will government employees trust the FBI with their secrets going forward?

That catch is called the Standard Form (SF) 86. The SF-86 is what some government employees must fill out to apply for a security clearance. For a president’s closest aides—cabinet secretaries, agency heads, White House staff—the background check is administered by the FBI. And it’s intense.

First, you’re required to list everywhere you’ve lived and worked for the past 10 years, as well as details about your relatives and your spouse. Then you’re required to list seven years of foreign contacts, business dealings, and travel. Then it takes a spin through your finances—have you declared bankruptcy in the last seven years? (Flagging this one for you, Donald.) It requires you to disclose gambling debt, credit-card delinquency, and failure to pay alimony.

Then it gets personal. “In the last seven years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition?” “Has your use of alcohol had a negative impact on your work performance, your professional or personal relationships, your finances, or resulted in intervention by law enforcement/public safety personnel? ” “In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? ” (The form helpful provides a full seven (7) pages for your response.) And it concludes with the ultimate gotcha’ question – “Have you EVER knowingly engaged in any acts of terrorism?” (I have not.)

Detailing every misstep of your adult life in a 127-page form and then handing it to the government feels, well, crazy, but that’s just the beginning. Next up is the in-person interview where you’re joined by FBI agents to review and augment those answers. I don’t care if you’re Mother Teresa or Jason Bourne—you leave that room rattled. After that, the agents spend the next several months calling and personally visiting your friends and family. Being interviewed by an agent is terrifying, and their goal is to find out if you lied.

The agency retains secrets as well as a sieve so this seems like it's going to be a large concern.

 

[The Don]

This time could backfire on them, especially regarding the Supreme Court. It's very simple for people to see that there's an opening on the court, that the president has nominated someone, and that the GOPers are refusing to vote on it. It's tough to paint the prez as the bad guy when anyone with a few functioning neurons can see that it's the GOP that's to blame.
Steve S

Why not ? It's worked for the last 8 years and (if elected) Hillary will start off significantly less popular and with a yuuuuge amount of political baggage.

Portraying her as the villain of the piece (for continually proposing people who are pro-choice) will be a piece of cake for the GOP. After all they don't need to convince everyone, just enough people to hold onto the reins of power. Decades of gerrymandering have ensured this in the House and there's no way that the Democratic Party will have the supermajority required to see off filibustering in the Senate.

 

[Tony Stark]

Why not ? It's worked for the last 8 years and (if elected) Hillary will start off significantly less popular and with a yuuuuge amount of political baggage.

Portraying her as the villain of the piece (for continually proposing people who are pro-choice) will be a piece of cake for the GOP. After all they don't need to convince everyone, just enough people to hold onto the reins of power. Decades of gerrymandering have ensured this in the House and there's no way that the Democratic Party will have the supermajority required to see off filibustering in the Senate.

Rule changes in the Senate (like nuking the filibuster) require a simple majority.

 

[The Don]

Rule changes in the Senate (like nuking the filibuster) require a simple majority.

A majority that the Democratic Party does not (yet) have.

They may also be reluctant to give up the filibuster option because it's entirely feasible that after four years there may more than one spot open on the SCOTUS and the prospect of a GOP President, Senate and House on the horizon.

Until (or indeed if ever) the U.S. electorate deem it unacceptable for a party to be so obstructionist and punish them then there's no prospect of a change. Unfortunately them seem to be saying "a pox on both their houses" and are attracted to more extreme candidates (especially on the right) who are even less likely to consider working with the opposition party.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why not ? It's worked for the last 8 years and (if elected) Hillary will start off significantly less popular and with a yuuuuge amount of political baggage.

Portraying her as the villain of the piece (for continually proposing people who are pro-choice) will be a piece of cake for the GOP. After all they don't need to convince everyone, just enough people to hold onto the reins of power. Decades of gerrymandering have ensured this in the House and there's no way that the Democratic Party will have the supermajority required to see off filibustering in the Senate.

Exactly, it isn't like nominating the guy they said would be a shoe in has caused them any political losses for blocking. They have learned there are no consequences for this.

 

[Tony Stark]

A majority that the Democratic Party does not (yet) have.

They may also be reluctant to give up the filibuster option because it's entirely feasible that after four years there may more than one spot open on the SCOTUS and the prospect of a GOP President, Senate and House on the horizon.

Until (or indeed if ever) the U.S. electorate deem it unacceptable for a party to be so obstructionist and punish them then there's no prospect of a change. Unfortunately them seem to be saying "a pox on both their houses" and are attracted to more extreme candidates (especially on the right) who are even less likely to consider working with the opposition party.

Democrats would be moronic to not nuke the filibuster at least for Supreme Court Justices if they get the Senate. They could ensure a liberal leaning Supreme Court for decades. The Republicans will nuke it themselves if they are ever in the position to anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

My guess too.

It had been known within the FBI for weeks that there might be Clinton emails on Wiener's device (laptop? tablet?). Then suddenly, last week Comey thinks it's necessary to inform Congress, and now after only a week he says there's nothing to see. He couldn't keep his men from leaking to the press for another week? Really?

It's simply more evidence that his letter to Congress was a deliberate attempt to influence the elections.

If he wanted to influence the election, why not wait until after Tuesday to announce that nothing changed? It's not like he doesn't have a good excuse on hand, namely that it takes a lot of time to sort through that many emails.

 

[Ziggurat]

Will government employees trust the FBI with their secrets going forward?



The agency retains secrets as well as a sieve so this seems like it's going to be a large concern.

The Atlantic is apparently staffed by fools. China already has a treasure trove of basically everyone's full TS-86 form thanks to their hacking of the Office of Personnel Management, and the government cannot guarantee that it won't get hacked again in the future. So this information is already not safe. More than that, it's already in the hands of people who might try to actively use it to blackmail you (not just embarrass you), if you're in an important position. So the idea that the FBI's recent actions, NONE of which involve divulging anything on anyone's TS-86 form, are a real source of concern next to the demonstrated threat from foreign intelligence services is a joke.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Atlantic is apparently staffed by fools. China already has a treasure trove of basically everyone's full TS-86 form thanks to their hacking of the Office of Personnel Management, and the government cannot guarantee that it won't get hacked again in the future. So this information is already not safe. More than that, it's already in the hands of people who might try to actively use it to blackmail you (not just embarrass you), if you're in an important position. So the idea that the FBI's recent actions, NONE of which involve divulging anything on anyone's TS-86 form, are a real source of concern next to the demonstrated threat from foreign intelligence services is a joke.

Yes the FBI is just best viewed as the law enforcement arm of the republican party.

 

[Belz...]

This whole thing has been a confusing nightmare.

The scary thought, however, is that the next election might be even worse. Trump opened Pandora's box, completely forgetting the issues to focus on the opponent, putting into question the very democratic process, and being a general demagogue. I don't know what 2020 will bring...

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes the FBI is just best viewed as the law enforcement arm of the republican party.

Let me guess: Trump paid off Comey, right?

 

[Stacko]

The Atlantic is apparently staffed by fools. China already has a treasure trove of basically everyone's full TS-86 form thanks to their hacking of the Office of Personnel Management, and the government cannot guarantee that it won't get hacked again in the future. So this information is already not safe. More than that, it's already in the hands of people who might try to actively use it to blackmail you (not just embarrass you), if you're in an important position. So the idea that the FBI's recent actions, NONE of which involve divulging anything on anyone's TS-86 form, are a real source of concern next to the demonstrated threat from foreign intelligence services is a joke.

None of that makes it acceptable for the FBI to be untrustworthy. This is just a long, "Hey! Look over there!"

 

[Ziggurat]

The scary thought, however, is that the next election might be even worse. Trump opened Pandora's box, completely forgetting the issues to focus on the opponent, putting into question the very democratic process, and being a general demagogue. I don't know what 2020 will bring...

Trump isn't the one who rigged the primary process of his party to ensure his own nomination. That's not simply putting into question the democratic process, that's actively subverting it, and it's what Hillary and her allies did.

And the attacks on Trump have been primarily about Trump the person, not his policy positions, so it's more than a little ironic to make that a centerpiece of your accusation against him.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's not the source of the problem, and the institutional failings of the political class and the press are far more of a threat in the long run than Trump is.

 

[Tony Stark]

Let me guess: Trump paid off Comey, right?

No, Obama was just stupid for putting a Republican in charge of the FBI. Hopefully that error will rectified soon.

Also, Donald Trump is back to claiming that FBI is rigged in favor of Hillary. But that's the standard conspiracy theory you Republicans believe, yes?

 

[Ziggurat]

None of that makes it acceptable for the FBI to be untrustworthy. This is just a long, "Hey! Look over there!"

I note that you haven't contested the actual argument I made, which makes your own post a very short "Hey! Look over there!"

If the untrustworthiness of the FBI is a real concern, then there should be real arguments for why it is a concern. And maybe there are. But that Atlantic piece is not a real argument for why it's a concern. It's a sham argument, and you haven't provided any actual defense of it. Nor have you provided any actual rationale for why it's wrong to point that a sham argument is, in fact, a sham.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Let me guess: Trump paid off Comey, right?

That's the only logical conclusion to draw from a man who consistently recommends no charges against Clinton.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, Obama was just stupid for putting a Republican in charge of the FBI.

I note that you didn't say his mistake was putting Comey in charge of the FBI, but simply a Republican. Everything is partisan to you. That's why you think everything is partisan to everyone else.

 

[Tony Stark]

I note that you didn't say his mistake was putting Comey in charge of the FBI, but simply a Republican. Everything is partisan to you. That's why you think everything is partisan to everyone else.

Republicans prove over and over again the fact that they are trash. Not my fault.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let me guess: Trump paid off Comey, right?

Not at all. But why did he violate justice department policy and quite possibly the Hatch act of 1939? Is he just that incompetent and incredibly dumb, or was it because he knew he needed to get ahead of all the other leakers who would be violating the law?

The actions of the FBI are clearly setting themselves up as a partisan group.

 

[Belz...]

Trump isn't the one who rigged the primary process of his party to ensure his own nomination.

You know what I was talking about, don't you? So why try to change the subject?

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that how political parties choose their candidates is their own affair.

And the attacks on Trump have been primarily about Trump the person, not his policy positions

Because he has none. When did he ever engage in a conversation about his policies? All we know is that he has the best people and the best words and the best ideas.

Just because you vote Republican doesn't mean you have to defend every single thing any of them does, you know?

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's not the source of the problem, and the institutional failings of the political class and the press are far more of a threat in the long run than Trump is.

Now, that's genuinely interesting. Could you expand on that?