730
The Clarence Thomas Scandal Is Somehow Looking Even Worse
(www.vanityfair.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
730 points (98.3% liked)
News
23360 readers
1917 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They get paid 274k...DC is expensive, but anyone that can't live very comfortably on that is awful with money. Being awful with money will lose you a TS clearance because it makes you susceptible to bribery by spies. I would think it would also be a disqualifier for a SCOTUS judge for the same reason.
I think maintaining a TS clearance should be a requirement for all positions above a certain level in the federal government. Not because they need access to TS information, but to ensure they are at a lower risk of bribery, adversarial interests, and criminal activity. Getting a TS clearance isn't terribly hard. Just generally have your act together. As long as you aren't a train wreck, a drug addict, a criminal, an untrustworthy asshat, or have connections to adversaries, you will pass adjudication. TLDR: A TS clearance would ensure high level government employees are minimumly functional humans.
The "rules for thee and not for me" coming out of our politics this last 5-10 years seems to be accelerating. It's infuriating. When this story broke, I was in the middle of doing my trainings at work. You know the ones you roll your eyes and burn an afternoon doing to get off the naughty list. Clarence must have skipped the ethics training. The whole part of "even the appearance of wrong doing" violates our ethics guidelines. THE APPEARANCE.
You know what would happen if I sold my house to a contractor we were working with, then let my mom move into that house, then this person renovated and remodeled the whole house, but my mom's rent didn't go up mind you. Oh, and then I did official business with this person's company and made official decisions that would/could directly impact that persons business. Oh yea, then not disclose it. You know what the fuck would happen to me?? I'd be investigated by OPR, put on administrative leave immediately, eventually terminated, and probably charged criminally.
Then you have this clown who absolutely knows better. He's a supreme court justice. You can't plead ignorance here, Clarence. He just...gets to continue to wipe his ass with the public trust and violate his oath of office and responsibility to the American people.
Odd that red state losers vote for people who make them bigger losers, isn't it?
To add on, security clearances are centered around the idea of "how much damage could this cause to the country if mishandled".
Well, SCOTUS can do a lot of damage to the country.
Like fixing an election - Gore vs Bush
That would create huge separation of power issues. The executive branch would become the arbiter of who is allowed to serve in Congress or the Supreme Court. Trump showed us how easy it is for a president to abuse the clearance system when he got his dipshit spawn cleared despite the objections of the usual personnel.
Maybe they shouldn't be issued clearances (unlessn it's required to do part of their job), but they should do through a similar background check process to make sure they're fit to hold office.
Then again, the whole power-of-the-people election thing is supposed to filter out people who aren't fit for office 🤔
Even rich people are susceptible to bribery. I remember someone saying that they voted for Trump because he is rich and won't be influenced by lobby, but look at what happens. He passed laws that benefit him and his family, supporting Russia,... We need other means and not throw more money for those people.
We had a bit of a thing about that in Canada with opposition leaders not wanting to pass security clearance to be allowed to see documents related to Chinese interference because as long as they didn't see the documents they could speculate as much as they wanted... Pretty crazy that it's not automatic to be an elected member of the government...
Regular TS sure, but like Whitehouse comms? Kinda strict... But I completely agree that this guy obviously for sale to the highest bidding handler.
The way this is supposed to work, is the higher the position and responsibility, the greater the "find out" consequences. You absolutely had to know better and you absolutely did it anyway.
Some Airman walks off with a Secret document, and they're in for some UCMJ meat grinding.
This joke needs to be fired and charged if there are crimes. If that kind of blatant bias for bucks bullshit isn't a crime it needs to be.
Fuck that guy.
Yeah, but that would 100% get abused politically to remove justices that don't align with whoever is issuing clearances. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but recent history has shown that trusting politicians to not abuse the system isn't a good long term solution
They did it to Oppenheimer
Oh also agree 💯 about the salary. 274K with gold plated benefits? Yeah cry me a river. If you had to shovel sewage for 60 hours a week for minimum wage, but his benefits package, there would be a million people fighting for the job.
Its first time for me hearing about the ts clereance, but seems to me its doing its job. If it was used the way you describe it, I am sure it would fast become the victim of Goodharts law and thus become useless.
a clearance wouldnt ensure anything, and Supreme Court Justices dont need them (by law - USC Title 18a,9 ), so it doesnt matter
I like this sentiment, but giving the US intelligence apparatus what amounts to a veto for elected/appointed officials feels like a recipe for disaster.
The only way I see that being workable is if the clearance grantors are transparently beholden to elected officials or the people directly. Which are essentially what elections and the congressional confirmation process are supposed to be. But both of those processes feel like they've been subverted. (Elections by the two-party system and the fact that half the population seems intent on electing a dictator, and the other by the senators/representatives that come out of that electoral system).
The US intelligence apparatus doesn't do this. The OPM does.
As per your second paragraph and many other comments. I agree. It is hard to avoid it being politicized at any step of the process. Everything interview would have to be recorded. Copies of all reviewed records would need to be kept. Adjudicators would need heavily redacted transcripts of the records and interviews.