Could a person be the United States President if they didn't qualify for a clearance of any level?

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:45:05 -0500

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jan 5 at 2017 6:47 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 18:47:09 -0500

It worked for President's Bush, Clinton, and Obama. Bazinga!

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Jan 5 at 2017 7:27 PM

SSG Mark Franzen — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 19:27:13 -0500

I think that if He can't pass a Back ground check then they be removed. I think also if they
have no military Back ground should not be president either. good example is trump has no knowledge about the military or government that he should be disqualified.
SSG MARK FRANZEN
USA VET

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 5 at 2017 7:31 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 19:31:30 -0500

Yep! Look Who We Just Got! In another Generation He would have been viewed as a "Suspect" Soviet Agent.

Response by CSM William DeWolf made Jan 5 at 2017 7:40 PM

CSM William DeWolf — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 19:40:22 -0500

I would hope not!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 7:46 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 19:46:21 -0500

Yes

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jan 5 at 2017 8:11 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 20:11:46 -0500

Yes. The real problem is actually their staff and cabinet not being able to get a clearance though. Was a giant problem for President Clinton.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 8:32 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 20:32:21 -0500

Rephrase the question to "Should a person be..." Hell no!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 9:06 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:06:25 -0500

Of the 43 men who have served as president so far, I would say that at least a few of them fit that description. So the question has been answered already.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2017 9:33 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:33:36 -0500

Sitting US Presidents are not required to go through an SSBI or any screening to get access to information even if they would be denied the clearance otherwise. In some respects the screening is them being elected by the process. They are defacto OCA's the president at his leisure can classify or declassfiy any program he wants. I am sure there can be consequences of abuse of that power and if recklessness could result in possible impeachment or other criminal charges. They have the power to use all the information they are in charge of. If you think about the information is his until he is out of office. I am sure there is process that he has to sign NDA's that he will never divulge anything secret while he was in office.

Response by PO1 John Johnson made Jan 6 at 2017 8:33 AM

PO1 John Johnson — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 08:33:01 -0500

I don't see how they can, as all most everything they see or touch comes with some level of security classification.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jan 6 at 2017 9:04 AM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:04:10 -0500

Well the qualifications for President are quite clear in black and white. Considering the office is designed for Joe Everyman, the clearance level is irrelevant.

Now as someone else pointed out Should a person be President if they can't get a clearance, of course not.

Part of a security clearance is investigating our financial backgrounds, seeing if we have any foreign allegiances, etc. We obviously wouldn't want someone in office if they aren't loyal to this country. But as of right now a security clearance isn't a requirement for office.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2017 9:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Jan 2017 21:32:38 -0500

explain how hrc got and maintained a clearance?

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Jan 8 at 2017 2:41 AM

Capt Michael Greene — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 02:41:20 -0500

The Constitution doesn't require anything of any elected office other than be voted in. You cannot legally require an elected official to qualify in any way for anything. Lots of folks would love to say "he can't be president/senator/mayor because he isn't...cleared for TS/educated the right way/of the right religion.

We DID impose qualifications on elected office at one time. Then we had a revolution and stopped all that. Virginia used to be a full blown theocracy, somewhat like Iran.

Response by Pat McCracken made Jan 8 at 2017 9:56 PM

Pat McCracken — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 21:56:36 -0500

The Constitution clearly states the requirements one needs to be president, and being able to get a security clearance is not one of them. Should they be???? That's something to ponder.

Response by CSM (Ret) Albert Whatmough made Jan 12 at 2017 12:28 PM

CSM (Ret) Albert Whatmough — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:28:06 -0500

The president of the United States is not subject to a security screening and does not hold a security clearance. Once elected, only time and inclination separate a new president from opening the vaults and knowing the truth about everything. This will come as a great relief to the candidates of both major parties, neither of whom would likely otherwise qualify for a clearance. In the case of Donald Trump: his multiple bankruptcies, the ongoing Trump University lawsuit, and his contact with undesirable foreign nationals (Vladimir Putin would make a poor character reference on an SF-86) would probably add up to a big red X stamped across his form. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, would have to answer—while hooked up to a polygraph—whether in the past seven years she ever received a warning or reprimand for any “violation of a security policy.” An honest answer to this would not be promising, and I doubt that investigators would be swayed by the defense “…but after his reprimand, the director of the FBI didn’t indict me!”