Hypocritic Oaf

" ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" --  Presidential Oath of Office ( ... but only if I feel like it.)

Can the president pass a background check for top secret security clearance?

   The derivation of the word "hypocrite" is from the   Greek "hypo-"  meaning "less than" and "-kreinen," meaning "believable." It was first applied to actors, then to people generally, when they pretended to be other than what they really were. And that is the sense of the word as used today.
   Hypocrisy is particularly rampant among politicians, and has been for many decades. We now face a herd of political figures who bring the meaning of hypocrisy to new heights.
   This brings us to the topic for today -- the demand from some in government that those on the opposing side of the political divide be forced out of office for some types of misbehavior but those on the "in" side be excused and the allegations be ignored.
   The most noise is being made about allegations of sexual misbehavior and harassment of women. Similarly, a lot of noise is made about national security background checks and clearances to handle top secret material compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies.
   Sometimes, the two go together, so the question becomes whether men who routinely harass women can be trusted to keep secret confidential material given them by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. Often, the issue is whether those charged with misbehavior will succumb to blackmail and release top secret information to those who should not have it.
   Recently, many in the current administration have been forced to resign because of sexual misbehavior allegations and therefore could not pass security background checks.
   Others, however, have been kept on the job by the current president despite these reports, despite having gained only "interim" security clearance. And this, more than a year on the job.
   It seems the president feels at liberty to keep some folks on the job handling top secret documents many months after investigative agencies warned to potential problems.
   One wonders whether members of Congressional intelligence committees have been cleared to handle top secret files.
   (Congressional intelligence -- now there's an oxymoron for you.)

   For that matter, does the president face similar vetting? Or are we to just take him at his word, which he insists we do in all other things? Next he may propagate a doctrine of presidential infallibility.
   Scary thought.