Although the federal government is grossly bloated with tens of thousands of bureaucrats both civilian and military who have unneeded security clearances, the Presidency of the United States is a position that obviously requires one – since his finger is on the “nuclear trigger.” Should Joe Biden be granted a security clearance? Or is it going to be pushed through politically (at great cost to National Security) like the Clinton White House staff clearances were.* ?
Compare Rudy Guliani’s evidence of Joe Biden’s electoral fraud and “pay to play” treason with Communist countries (and spies) with the case against J. Robert Oppenheimer who was the wartime head of the Alamos Atomic Laboratory suspended from his post as chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in December 1953 as an alleged security risk.
“Opinion of the AEC:
The issue before the Commission is whether the security of the United States warrants Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer’s [Biden’s] continued access to restricted data of the Atomic Energy Commission. The data to which Dr. Oppenheimer has had until recently full access include some of the most vital secrets in the possession of the United States.
Having carefully studied the pertinent documents – the transcripts of the hearings before the Personnel Security Board (Gray Board), the findings and recommendation of the Board, the briefs of Dr. Oppenheimer’s counsel, and the findings and recommendations of the general manager- we have concluded that Dr. Oppenheimer’s [Biden’s] clearance for access to restricted data should not be reinstated.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 lays upon the commissioners the duty to reach a determination as to “the character, associations, and loyalty” of the individuals engaged in the work of the Commission. Thus, disloyalty would be one basis for disqualification, but it is only one. Substantial defects of character and imprudent and dangerous associations, particularly with known subversives who place the interests of the foreign powers above those of the United States, are also reasons for disqualification.
On the basis of the record before the Commission, comprising the transcript of the hearings before the Gray Board, as well as reports of Military Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we find Dr. Oppenheimer is not entitled to the continued confidence of the government and of this Commission because of the proof of fundamental defects in his character.
In respect to the criterion of “associations,” we find that his associations with persons known to him to be Communists have extended far beyond the tolerable limits of prudence and self-restraint which are to be expected of one holding the high positions that the government has continuously entrusted to him since 1942. These associations have lasted too long to be justified as merely the intermittent and accidental revival of earlier friendships.
…In weighing the matter at issue, we have taken into account Dr. Oppenheimer’s past contributions to the atomic energy program. At the same time, we have been mindful of the fact that the positions of high trust and responsibility which Dr. Oppenheimer [Biden] has occupied carried with them a commensurately high obligation of unequivocal character and conduct on his part. A government official having access to the most sensitive areas of restricted data and the the innermost details of national war plans and weapons must measure up to exemplary standards of reliability, self-discipline, and trustworthiness. Dr. Oppenheimer [Biden] has fallen far short of acceptable standards.
The record shows that Dr. Oppenheimer [Biden] has consistently placed himself outside the rules which govern others. He has falsified in matters wherein he was charged with grave responsibilities in the national interest. In his associations he has repeatedly exhibited a willful disregard of the normal and proper obligations of security.
As to “character”:
Dr. Oppenheimer has now admitted under oath that while in charge of the Los Alamos Laboratory and working on the most secret weapon development for the government, he told Colonel [Boris, T.) Pash a fabrication of lies. Colonel Pash was officer of Military Intelligence charged with the duty of protecting the atomic weapons project against spies. Dr. Oppenheimer told Colonel Pash in circumstantial detail of an attempt by a Soviet agent to obtain from him information about the work on the atom bomb. This was the Haakon Chevalier incident. In the hearings recently concluded, Dr. Oppenheimer under oath swears that the story he told Colonel Pash was a “whole fabrication and tissue of lies”…
In 1950 Dr. Oppenheimer told an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he had not known Joseph Weinberg to be a member of the Communist Party until that fact became public knowledge. Yet on Sept. 12, 1943, Dr. Oppenheimer told Colonel Lansdale that Weinberg was a Communist Party member.
The catalog does not end with these six examples. The work of Military Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Atomic Energy Commission – all at one time or another- have felt the effect of his falsehoods, evasions, and misrepresentations.
Dr. Oppenheimer’s [Biden’s] persistent and willful disregard for the obligations of security is evidenced by his obstruction of inquiries by security officials. In the Chevalier incident, Dr. Oppenheimer was questioned in 1943 by Colonel Pash, Colonel Lansdale, and General [Lieut. Gen. Leslie R.] Groves about the attempt to obtain information from him on the atomic bomb project in the interest of the Soviet government. He had waited eight months before mentioning the occurrence to the proper authorities. Thereafter, for almost four months, Dr. Oppenheimer refused to name the individual who had approached him. Under oath he now admits that his refusal to name the individual impeded the government’s investigation of the espionage. The record shows other instances where Dr. Oppenheimer [Biden] has refused inquiries of federal officials on security matters or has been deliberately misleading.
As to “associations”:
“Associations” is a factor which, under the law, must be considered by the Commission. Dr. Oppenheimer’s close association with Communists is another part of the pattern of his disregard of the obligation to security.
Dr. Oppenheimer, under oath, admitted to the Gray Board that from 1937 to at least 1942 he made regular and substantial contributions in cash to the Communist Party. He has admitted that he was a “fellow traveler” at least until 1942. He admits that he attended small evening meetings at private homes at which most, if not all, of the others present were Communist Party members. He [Biden] was in contact with officials of the Communist Party, some of whom had been engaged in espionage. His activities were of such a nature that these Communists looked upon him as one of their own.
However, Dr. Oppenheimer’s early Communist associations are not in themselves a controlling reason for our decision. They take on importance in the context of his persistent and continuing association with Communists, including his admitted meetings with Haakon Chevalier in Paris as recently as last December – the same individual who had been an intermediary for the Soviet Consulate in 1943.
On Feb. 25, 1950, Dr. Oppenheimer wrote a letter to Chevalier attempting “to clear the record with regard to your alleged involvement in the atom business.” Chevalier used this letter in connection with his application to the State Department for a U.S. passport. Later that year Chevalier came and stayed with Dr. Oppenheimer for several days at the latter’s home. In December 1953, Dr. Oppenheimer visited with Chevalier privately on two occasions in Paris and lent his name to Chevalier’s dealings with the U.S. Embassy in Paris on a problem which, according to Dr. Oppenheimer, involved Chevalier’s clearance. Dr. Oppenheimer admitted today he has only a “strong guess’ that Chevalier is not active in Communist Party affairs.
These episodes separately and together present a serious picture. It is clear that for one who has had access for so long to the most vital defense secrets of the government and who would retain such access if his clearance were continued, Dr. Oppenheimer [Biden] has defaulted not once but many times upon the obligations that should and must be willingly borne by citizens in the national service.
Concern for defense and security of the United States requires that Dr. Oppenheimer’ [Biden’s] clearance should not be reinstated.
Dr. Oppenheimer [President-elect Biden] is hereby denied access to restricted data [and, by virtue of that fact, is disqualified to fill the office of President of the United States].”
See Also: Unlimited Access by Robert Aldrich
