January 10, 2009
I was out looking for info on Gov Richardson’s inability to get FBI clearance for his confirmation hearing and I ran across this interesting post from Citizen Wells. It’s dated 9-30-08 and is a radio interview of an FBI agent about background checks on politicians. It was “written by Phil’s Assistant“. I’m presuming it was a Philip Berg assistant. [emphasis added]
ASSISTANT: We have received a lot of question asking: ‘How did Obama get this far, he must have had background checks as he is a U.S. Senator.’
ASSISTANT: However, this is inaccurate according to Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI.
FIGIULIZZI: Background checks are not performed on those elected, once elected they work for Congress and are handed a secret clearance.
Audio transcription of Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi, Cleveland FBI & Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2.
CALLER – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.
FBI – The short answer is no. No we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.
HOST – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?
FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.
HOST – Even people running for president of the United States of America?
FBI – That’s correct.
HOST – That’s a little weird.
FBI – Well, its part of democracy, its part of what the American people want, they want to be able to vote for somebody to represent them in Washington and they don’t want us to get in the way of that and we have no predilection to get in the way of that.
HOST – Yeah, but what if they’re voting for a bad person and they don’t know that person is bad, do you follow me?. I’m saying, if the guy’s got a background and maybe he’s involved with some people that he shouldn’t be involved with, shouldn’t we know that as voters?.
FBI – Well, I think you’d agree that the American political process is about as rigorous as you’ll ever see and if there’s dirt back there, probably the opponent is gonna get it out probably before anyone else will.
HOST – Now I know why you’re the head of the FBI, they’re good, aren’t they?.
It’s hard to fathom. because of barry’s admitted past history of drug abuse – he cannot be a DEA, FBI or Secret Service agent and yet he will be in charge of them. What is not know about Sen Clinton vs barry? He claims transparency but he refuses to release his birth certificate, his full medical and full school records.
And why didn’t/hasn’t the Secret Service tell us if he was in the pew?
And a look at his passport history?
barry’s passport could clear up one avenue of inquiry. If he held and Indonesian one – end of story.
At least six people know the answer to that:
- Intelligence superior
- high clearance computer person
- lower level computer discoverer
- some type of police officer
- lawyer of some sort
- President Bush
Why aren’t we allowed to know that information?
Maybe SCOTUS is able to subpoena them.
And China breached the system. What info do they have on barry?
No. I am not a (tinfoil-wearing) paranoid conspiracist racist who wants to destroy barry because my candidate lost. I had no candidate and did not vote. And who in their right mind would want him to fail? I’m just carrying it to extreme to point out what little access to information we have from the Man of Transparency.
And who has the ethical journalistic duty to demand the answers?
It used to be called the press. Now it’s called the proobamedia.