Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_snooze | Hacker News Reader

SF-86 Section 13A Employment Activities

>For this employment have any of the following happened to you in the last seven (7) years?

>Fired, quit after being told you would be fired, left by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct, left by mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance.

>Provide the reason for being fired.

https://www.opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

View on HN

Security clearances are granted by the president, or someone delegated by him. The president has absolute authority to bypass, modify, or shut down the clearance credentialing system. There is no law or Constitutional requirement dictating security requirements or how they are applied.

As the sibling comment pointed out, this is not to say that doing so is a good idea. But it's very probably legal.

Nope, it's not illegal at all. This where one of the "traditions" should have come in and congress/the people should have burned Trump at stake for doing so, though. All those concerns about Hilary Emails 9 years ago, but we let Trump fast track his circus in no problems.

I don't believe the POTUS is bound by the government's assessment of an employee's security risk.

Whether or not ignoring such things is a good idea is something voters must judge.

You have a point - there are probably no defined rules about whether security risk rules apply when POTUS is employing someone to do something illegal or unconstitutional.

If anyone gets to judge, however, it will be SCOTUS, not voters. It's hard to guess, right now, whether that's a plus for security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com