"... frustrating staffers who were pleased by initial indications from the Biden administration that recreational use of cannabis would not be immediately disqualifying for would-be personnel, according to three people familiar with the situation. The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 states—and the District of Columbia—where cannabis is legal. Sources familiar with the matter also said a number of young staffers were either put on probation or canned because they revealed past marijuana use in an official document they filled out as part of the lengthy background check for a position in the Biden White House.... A candidate’s personal drug history, barring past convictions for possession, is largely based on the honor system, as well as supplemental interviews with family and friends by the FBI—although lying on the 136-page SF-86 form is a felony, and effectively bars a candidate from ever working for a federal agency.... Some of these dismissals, probations and remote work appointments could have potentially been a result of inconsistencies that came up during the background check process, where a staffer could have, for example, misstated the last time they used marijuana."
It sounds as though you need to know the best answer to whether to lie on the form or not. Loathsome hypocrisy, whatever the answer is.
Hear what #KamalaHarris thinks about legalizing marijuana 💬 pic.twitter.com/YGZlCAKUZ0
— The Breakfast Club (@breakfastclubam) February 11, 2019
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
The marijuana use might be only one of several problems.
Were any of these people told explicitly that they are in this status only because of marijuana use?
Drug use was disqualifying for clearances because it opened you to blackmail - withholding drugs or exposure. They just carry that tradition to today in any background check.
That TRUMP! he's SUCH a fascist! WHY can't he Just let people BE!
what's that? different White House, different President?
never mind.
So much to love in this story.
Kamala is so phony. "Listen to meee! I laugh a lot! In fact laugh all the time! Ha ha ha!"
Jfc
As Much as We ALL Love "President" Biden, THINK how much we'll LOVE having President Kamela!
Now, THERE is someone that could unite the country
although lying on the 136-page SF-86 form is a felony, and effectively bars a candidate from ever working for a federal agency
In the era of the left's selective prosecution, and the penchant for hypocrisy, why does that matter?
Past use might have turned out to mean "the night before I filled out the form." And every night since.
I would rather the entire staff at The White House smoke pot on a regular basis than have to live with Kamala Harris as our President. My God, she is phony and vacuous.
The public's bigger fear should be people i. the White House that take Aricept and/or Razadyne
Kamala is so phony. "Listen to meee! I laugh a lot! In fact laugh all the time! Ha ha ha!"
That made me laugh. "Kacklin' Camel-a" indeed.
...and why would the guilty be placed on 'remote work program' and not fired or forced to resign?
This reeks not of weed but of something else...
“Good and hard.”
Is possession and use of marijuana still a Federal crime?
Time for them to take up crack.
Kamala Harris’s record as a prosecutor in CA is not a secret.
Like it or not, Kamala is a cop.
They failed their FBI background check. Plain and simple. They can't get clearance to be in the White House.
This isn't about smoking a joint in High School.
Apparently taking dementia drugs is not a disqualifier, so there's that.
Dozens of young White House staffers...
The old potheads get to stay...
President Harris dos not f*ck around.
Also what kind of news story includes weasel words like “could have potentially been” and “for example” as used in that last quoted sentence?
Just spitballing here, then?
At my age, late 50's, I'm not sure I know anyone my age who DIDN'T smoke at least some pot in high school and college. So forget about young people, disqualifying everyone who admits to past pot use is simply a selection device for those willing to lie. Perhaps that's the point.
Just a reminder that the Chinese stole our database of SF-86 forms several years ago. I've filled out SF-86 and its an onerous process which wants to know more about you than you actually know. I hope our data security is better now, but you have to assume that anything bad about yourself you tell the feds, the CCP will know too..
Sure. Only hypocrisy.
Biden will never be expected to engage in any defense of his actions.
A simple question for Psaki(yes I know, only for raw entertainment value) Are the terminations on legal, or moral grounds? (aside of the lying on the application)
That is the nub of the issue.
It's not hypocrisy. Progs clearly don't believe in one set of rules for everyone. They think the founders erred in making equality a fundamental. They're changing it to Equity, which is whatever they say is fair or just at a given moment.
"The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 states—and the District of Columbia—where cannabis is legal."
This is the lie that is the root of the problem. Marijuana use is illegal in the entire US, it is a against federal law. Just because there is no state law in a particular jurisdiction doesn't invalidate the federal law. Don't expect to violate federal law and expect that it will not effect your ability to pass a federal background check.
I sampled a short bit in college. Not my thing.
Legalizing pot is OK. but I don't know how to get around the testing for impairment. Commercial Driver License holders will risk their income if a random test comes up positive. Since levels in the system can't be measured, even a contact high from a small house party will sacrifice their income. While white collar workers are not subject to random tests, blue collar workers on the production floor are. More stratification of treatment by class is what is evolving. For Democrats that's a feature, not a bug.
Does this mean that Hunter will not be eligible to work in the White House?
This is not a normal "background check," it's for a security clearance. Past use of marijuana isn't disqualifying--it would be impossible to hire anyone coming out of college otherwise, yet those kids get jobs and clearances all the time.
Use once you've entered the process or gotten a clearance is a problem, though not self reporting is worse. Lying on the SF-86? You're done, and you should be.
Are we back to believing the FBI is a rules based organization?
So smoke’s a no-go
What about teh yay-yo?
Of course lie about past drug use unless there is a paper trail. No matter what they say, it's dangerous to trust people of weak character.
It's hard to imagine Biden being able to staff his team if having smoked marijuana at any point in the past is a disqualifier. Maybe it's an intelligence test--anybody dumb enough to admit it shouldn't have a sensitive job.
Every new hire into the West Wing is given instruction and assistance filling out the form in a way that almost assures they pass the background check.
They weren't denied a security clearance for the White House due to mistakes on the form, or smoking weed.
The way this is framed, these people are victims. Victims of an intolerant Puritanical society. Might as well blame Trump.
The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 states—and the District of Columbia—where cannabis is legal.
If they were too stupid to realize cannabis is illegal by federal law, then that should be the disqualification.
"Don't expect to violate federal law and expect that it will not effect your ability to pass a federal background check."
-- Maybe they were hoping for the "reasonable prosecutor" standard to apply to them.
That corpse they call Joe Biden call over-ride the FBI and issue them a security clearance.
These are low level staffers/interns. Democrats don't hire people based on qualifications.
They just hire their friends.
Is it possible that these people were Trump carry-overs and this was the quickest way to get rid of them in order to hire Dem loyalists? Will the replacements be subject to the same rules as the terminated?
"Is it possible that these people were Trump carry-overs and this was the quickest way to get rid of them in order to hire Dem loyalists?"
-- Biden wouldn't make excuses if that were the case; he's fired people from appointed a-political positions. Do you think he'd have any qualms about firing lesser staffers?
The more I read about this, the more I think this is a classic: "You f---- up. You trusted us." moment.
HaHaHa LoLoL - These dumbshits are even too stupid to ever be mind-numbed government aparatcheks. Nothing, NOTHING has changed, not one single bit with how the federal government views that particular drug and it's criminality since the 1940's or 50's. We understood this in the application process for our security clearances in the 70's and there's been no reason to understand it any differently today: you NEVER self-incriminate, ever, as that's game over. If you "forget" to list some "incidental recreational drug use", the the burden of proof is on the FBI investigators and if they even happen to give a shit about it, that would only be due to the subject's recreational drug use coming up in multiple associated interviews, only resulting in the clearance maybe being denied. It would take the omission (or obvious attempted consealment) of an easily documentable derogatory fact to possibly trigger a charge of perjury on some "accidental" misstatement.
Man. Imagine being the person leaving your cushy Ivy League approved job for a White House job and ACCESS. The all valuable access. You managed to avoid ever having to be honest about drug use before, because you were White Collar, and no one asked you. Then, Biden, who had worked for the most powerful known previous drug user in America, President Obama, and his Vice President -- admitted marijuana user in her youth Kamala Harris -- both tell you it'll be ok. Just be honest, and you'll have access. Access and power.
And now, that you've publicly declared yourself basically unemployable and have left your last job during a pandemic, and potentially moved away from it, Biden and Harris say, just kidding. Only the ELITEST of the elite get to use drugs in the past and work in government.
It's such a tragically beautiful betrayal.
LiterallyYourMom says... “Turns out that @JoeBiden is only forgiving of past drug use if you’re his son.”
I don't believe that this is about some pot use. My bet is that they were loyal to the wrong person. This is probably WH infighting.
That laugh is like nails on a chalkboard to me. The obvious pandering is as well, but the laugh is the worst.
Is sexual harassment OK though? I mean the Big Guy, the Boss Man, did it so it must be alright.
Tupac was unavailable for comment.
Gee, that’s too bad. Maybe they can learn to code
This is pretty lame.
If you're not driving while impaired or stoned at work, who cares?
But I see the irony in that Biden is supposed to be much better than the bad orange man.
Schadenboner.
“Drug use was disqualifying for clearances because it opened you to blackmail - withholding drugs or exposure. They just carry that tradition to today in any background check.”
It traditionally wasn’t quite that bad. I had a DOE Q clearance (considered equivalent to a DOD Top Secret clearance) throughout most of the 1980s. The way it works is that you give them several references, and they are interviewed by the FBI, and asked, among other things, who also knew you fairly well, and they are then similarly interviewed. My memory is that it ran my employer over $50k almost 40 years ago. In any case, most of your secrets come out, which in my case meant some alleged drug use during college, a decade earlier. Maybe some “contact high” from the pot wafting down the halls. Maybe even a suggestion of psychedelics. I talked with the FBI for a couple hours about these completely baseless (of course) claims. In any case, the interview was essentially the end of a six month investigation, and whatever I said that day was apparently ok, and didn’t conflict with what everyone they interviewed told them about me, so my clearance was issued shortly after that (I got it to support the DOE sites west of the Mississippi, for my computer mainframe employer at the time - primarily at Sandia, where our nuclear Arsenal was being designed, but visited another half dozen of their sites over the years). Worse, a neighbor growing up was working on his PhD in Boulder, and the DOE really liked his work. Unfortunately, he had a felony cocaine conviction on his record. His background check took a bit longer (and turns out several of our friends were interviewed for both of us), and culminated with a lie detector test (which mine didn’t). Again, whatever he said must have satisfied them, since he got his clearance too.
My kid was offered the same choices, maybe three years ago. No indications of prior drug use, so their security clearance would have been easier (they got a lower one with NIST and NOAA very easily). Their PhD work was in lasers. During their research they did some Air Force and DOD work, and several DOE facilities were very interested. Sandia, in particular. The offers were a slight bit higher than the one they took, but turned them all down because classified work, like they were offered, is essentially a one way street - once you take a job behind the security curtain, none of your classified research can go on your non classified resume. I didn’t have that problem, since my work was identical on both sides, and I didn’t give away anything significant disclosing that I had worked at these DOE sites, along with NOAA, USDA, IRS, and a couple more.
My thoughts are that these people’s drug use was probably a bit more current that our undergraduate indiscretions. I spent enough time in DC a decade ago to know that there is a bit of casual drug use with the younger politically connected set. Hung out with some lobbyists, and some of them would provide party drugs (pot, maybe cocaine) if there was interest. And in the bars we hung out in, you could often smell a bit of pot lingering on the younger ones as they walked by.
Of course, the really funny part is that Biden’s surviving boy, Hunter, who no doubt hangs out at the White House, dodging paternity suits, is well known as a heavy cocaine user.
It sounds as though you need to know the best answer to whether to lie on the form or not. Loathsome hypocrisy, whatever the answer is.
@Althouse, retired law professor, what part of FEL-O-NY, as in “lying on the 136-page SF-86 form is a felony” do you not get?
I had to regularly fill out SF-86 forms during the course of my career and the penalties for knowingly falsifying information on that form are completely spelled out. And they are checked. For instance I was grilled over a small money market account I had totally forgotten about and ot listed on the form. Also my stepsisters and I had been estranged for years, but “whereabouts not known” was not acceptable. I had to figure out where they were living.
I suspect this is more about deceptions or what was left out of the paperwork. And many have not been discrete in their past marijuana use, especially if imbibing in a state where it is legal. So, you say no past drug use and your social media shows you in Colorado bragging. That put adjudicators on the spot for approving the clearance since it is a clear incident of lack of candor.
You've crafted a careful persona to get ahead, and now you have to tell the truth, some will try deceptions, but the honor system can come back to bite you in this age of social media.
"That put adjudicators on the spot for approving the clearance since it is a clear incident of lack of candor."
-- Yeah. You can get away with a whole lot in a background investigation (Infidelity? Sure! Felonies? Sure! Just don't lie about it.)
here is the basic framework of questions from the sf-86:
In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? Use of a drug or controlled substance includes injecting, snorting, inhaling, swallowing, experimenting with or otherwise consuming any drug or controlled substance.
- Provide the type of drug or controlled substance.
---THC (Such as marijuana, weed, pot, hashish, etc.)
Was your use while you were employed as a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or courtroom official, or while in a position directly and immediately affecting the public safety?
Was your use while possessing a security clearance?
Do you intend to use this drug or controlled substance in the future?
Bruce Hayden said...Of course, the really funny part is that Biden’s surviving boy, Hunter, who no doubt hangs out at the White House, dodging paternity suits, is well known as a heavy cocaine user.
and lied on is Navy SF-86, and used drugs while commissioned, and discharged for it, but pop saved him from a DD
Matt Sablan said...
"That put adjudicators on the spot for approving the clearance since it is a clear incident of lack of candor."
-- Yeah. You can get away with a whole lot in a background investigation (Infidelity? Sure! Felonies? Sure! Just don't lie about it.)
I've held a TS or better for the last 50 years. The advice I always give first timers is:
- don't lie, but
- always tell the same story, and
- keep a copy of your SF-86
step one in a reinvestigation next time is to compare the last and current SF-86s
At my age, late 50's, I'm not sure I know anyone my age who DIDN'T smoke at least some pot in high school and college.
Number of joints I've tried in my life: 1. (I had a junkie for a roommate one summer)
Number of cigarettes I've tried in my life: 1. (Boy Scout camping trip).
The way it works is that you give them several references, and they are interviewed by the FBI, and asked, among other things, who also knew you fairly well, and they are then similarly interviewed
in the early 80's (right out of highschool) a Good friend of mine joined the Air Force
a couple years later.. I had just gotten home from my night shift, and was lighting a jay.
The Phone ran,
and an (OBVIOUSLY) FBI type voice (unidentified) was on the line; and asking if i knew a Scott M?
And i quickly thought,
and said: Um, he was in the same high school as me.... I THINK we had marching band?
and the FBI voice said: "That's as much as you know about Scott?"
and i said yes
a few years later, i saw Scott and said to him
"I thought you were in the Air Force? Why did the FBI call me?"
and he told me that he HAD been in the Air Force, but now worked in Washington
AND then he said that some people from the Air Force go to work for groups, like the NSA; and that IF they did, the FBI would check them out (nicely not admitting ANYTHING)
THEN, he asked me What i had told the FBI?
I told him that i told the FBI, that i'd hardly knew him, and that we did NOT associate
He thanked me Profusely for not telling the FBI about any of our exploits
Never ever, ever lie on those types of forms.
The worst that happens if you tell the truth is you do not get a job.
The worst involves jail time.
Tim Maguire at 8:06:
"It's hard to imagine Biden being able to staff his team if having smoked marijuana at any point in the past is a disqualifier. Maybe it's an intelligence test--anybody dumb enough to admit it shouldn't have a sensitive job."
Yep - I mean come on. You are applying for a federal position - even this pothead knows you have to lie about weed at that level and be ready with fake pee. Although if they do a hair test for drugs - you are screwed.
"Yep - I mean come on. You are applying for a federal position - even this pothead knows you have to lie about weed at that level and be ready with fake pee. Although if they do a hair test for drugs - you are screwed."
Well, last time I had to pee in a cup for a security access, a male nurse came in to watch. So, fake pee might not work.
Bigot(s) in Chief.
Puff the hallucinating staffers.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Oh, wait...
"At my age, late 50's, I'm not sure I know anyone my age who DIDN'T smoke at least some pot in high school and college."
I'm 65 and I didn't. I would get in a car with friends to drive to a movie and they would all be toking up, but I did not.
What--you expect the Biden administration to keep its promises? Well I guess you are dumb enough to work for him--until you're thrown out like a used Kleenex.
I guess they inhaled!
Good luck staffing a left-wing administration without a bunch of potheads.
So it's like an honesty test and you get fired if you don't lie. OK then.
“here is the basic framework of questions from the sf-86:”
That is probably how both I, and that neighbor, got DOE Q clearances - the 7 year limitation. It was probably a bit over 10 years for me, since the completely false and scurrilous allegations of illegal drug use from when I was in college. And during much of that period I had either worked as a federal employee (Census) or contractor embedded in the govt (mostly NOAA and USDA).
Loathsome hypocrisy
We are talking about Democrats here...
Harsh Pencil said...
At my age, late 50's, I'm not sure I know anyone my age who DIDN'T smoke at least some pot in high school and college. So forget about young people, disqualifying everyone who admits to past pot use is simply a selection device for those willing to lie. Perhaps that's the point.
Ah, ye olde "Everybody Did It!" cop out. Got some news for you- everyone didn't I'm 65- quite a few of us didn't. My wife didn't either. Also never tried tobacco in any form. Being stuffed in a car with closed windows and 2 parents who smoked was more than enough exposure for me to decide tobacco use wasn't in my future.
What I told my children growing up was really simple. Anytime a teacher or authority figure tells you "Everybody did it!" they're lying. It means they did it, and are trying to excuse their own immoral/illegal behavior. Everyone gets to choose their own path, and they do it by making good choices or bad choices. We were actually somewhat lucky in bringing up children in that I had a druggie alcoholic tobacco addicted brother-in-law. Now departed largely due to his lifestyle. I always told my children that everyone serves some purpose in life. And was asked- by 3 of my 5, "What purpose does he serve?" Answer: "He's a fantastic bad example."
I've often told people I've stayed married for 43 years and brought up 5 successful children because of the example my father set. Whenever I've not been sure what to do next, I look at what he did or likely would have done, then I did something different. It's life- not the opposite, that doesn't always exist, but something different. It worked.
I was one of the people, far from being the only one, who signed the statement "I have never smoked marijuana, not even one experimental puff" when I enlisted in the Navy in 1973. All of us had somewhat similar experiences. Multiple times I was questioned and the questioner did his best (there were no hers) to get me to admit that was a lie.
My youngest is going through his TS clearance procedure now. Being commissioned in May, USA, Military Intelligence. His friends, his references, his employers, have all been called. He answered no to the question on drug use. Does he have friends who used drugs? Yes, his HS class only had 90 or so graduate. So he knew all of them. Actually, he recently noted that one of his friends, a heavy marijuana user, told him to stay away from certain parties in HS. He was, in a way, looking out for him. 4 years later, that one is starting to get his act together. Couldn't get a clearance if he tried. But there's lots of civilian jobs that don't require one.
Nance and Co voted for federal legalization before the election.
Now they have the Senate and WH too.
When is it coming up for a vote again?
"Ah, ye olde "Everybody Did It!" cop out. Got some news for you- everyone didn't I'm 65- quite a few of us didn't. My wife didn't either. Also never tried tobacco in any form. Being stuffed in a car with closed windows and 2 parents who smoked was more than enough exposure for me to decide tobacco use wasn't in my future."
Noting else to say here but... ditto.
Bruce: 40ish years ago, did they still ask about sexual preference? And what did they call marijuana?
I did a lie detector test a few days after my mother died. The first questions was “do you have any regrets?” And I totally lost it. But the test had been scheduled weeks earlier for a rare opening for a child protection job, and I thought I should go through with it. I did explain myself to the officer, and I did pass the test, but I definitely do not recommend having electrodes stuck all over your body and then being asked deep questions about your past a few days after the untimely death of a loved one.
What got me through it at all was realizing how utterly amused my mother would have been by the dilemma. She was one funny lady. A guy sat on a public bus next to her once, unzipped his pants, and took out his penis to try to scare her. She pointed at it and dramatically shout-whispered “shhhh, don’t tell anyone, but your thing is out.”
She scared him. He ran away.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा