Can someone who cites Mensch please point me to the rules covering Members having . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . revocable security clearances?

Thank you.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Don't know about Mensch, never quoted her, never trusted her,

Though I did have a security clearance back in the days...

and any violation that would cause revocation of a security clearance also carried a hefty fine and years of prison.

So security clearance revocation was not, typically, a deterrent.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. You weren't a Member.

My question was about Members and their security clearances.

Aside from that I agree with your statement about security clearance revocations. That would be a BIG deal.

[Xipe Totec]

8. You did not specify a member of what. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Members of Congress are not required to have and do not get security clearances.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf and https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm : "All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions. They do not receive security clearances per se. . . . Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below."

[pnwmom]

5. So the classified reports are routinely provided only to committees with responsibilities

in the national security area. AND they only "receive preference" from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis.

That seems to leave the door wide open to the IC making a decision not to satisfy their requests -- especially for an individual like Nunes who is under active investigation by the Ethics Committee for mishandling classified information. Giving a "preference" is not the same as giving a "guarantee."

[onenote]

20. You forget two things: Nunes is the chair of the IC

and the IC has a 13-9 repub majority.

So, in the real world, the likelihood of "the IC making a decision not to satisfy" a request by Nunes for access to secret information is basically zero.

[pnwmom]

21. But you are forgetting that the Ethics Committee has an even number of

Democrats and Republicans -- and that committee ELECTED to take on an investigation of Nunes, it wasn't required to. And that means at least one Republican must have sided with the Democrats.

And each intelligence agency makes its own decision about handling requests for classified info. By IC I meant "intelligence community," not "Intelligence committee." Sorry for the confusion.

[onenote]

24. and you forget that the ethics committee has no power to impose restrictions on a member

That can only be done by the full House and only based on a recommendation from the ethics committee based on a finding, after the conduct of an adjudicatory proceeding, that the allegations of an ethics violation have been proven.

[pnwmom]

27. I've read the rules and we disagree on the interpretation of them.

And since members of Congress only receive a "preference" for "satisfying their requests on an individual basis," not a guarantee, my view is very plausible.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf and https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm :

Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below."

[onenote]

30. Yes we disagree. I believe the rules mean what they say

You've invented a meaning that isn't present in the rules.

And now that you've moved away to the rules to the idea that the "Intelligence Community" will unilaterally decide not to give the Chairman of the Ethics Committee access to secret information, how do propose that be enforced? Do you think the other repubs on the Committee wouldn't share since the IC has no authority over them? What is it going to do. Refuse to give information to anyone on the IC?

In your desperate attempts to defend Mensch, you've invented a world that doesn't make sense and doesn't exist.

[Lee-Lee]

43. "Preference" in this context doesn't mean what you think it means

What they mean by "preference" that the requests from members of those committees get first priority in being filled.

So when the staffers at the agency get 12 requests for data and 3 come from those members with "preference" the 3 get filled first. And if another comes in from a member on that committee while they still have not filled the remaining 9 others get pushed aside and they fill it.

That is all the term "preference" means in this case, that their requests get priority and get filled first. It in no way, shape or form means that the agencies get to unilaterally decide to ignore or be non-responsive to requests.

[mackdaddy]

39. So did Congressman Ted Lieu have a security clearance, or just need to fill out this form?

He published on twitter his signed form for a security questionnaire. Maybe this is different from having the security clearance?

Link to tweet

[pnwmom]

4. Members of Congress may have an automatic clearance to read classified documents

connected with their position. They don't have to apply and get approval for it like other people.

The issue is whether a member of Congress could have his or her ability to view top secret or SCIF documents temporarily limited by the Ethics Committee while that person is being investigated by the committee for mishandling classified documents. I haven't seen any rule that addresses that situation.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Would it, therefor, be a reasonable conclusion that Ms. Mensch is . . . .

. . . . full of shit?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Why, yes. Yes, it is.

[pnwmom]

10. No. The IC community, according to the link above, only gives a

"preference" to members of Congress in granting them access to classified information. It doesn't guarantee that access.

So it is plausible that while Nunes is under active investigation by the Ethics Committee for mishandling documents, his access to top secret and SCIF documents had been barred.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. That's procedural. Ms. Mensch contends his security clearance was revoke.

In other words, she's full of shit.

Of course, some aver that as a non US person, her terms and phrasing could be a bit askew.

[pnwmom]

13. No, you are misquoting her.

She clearly states that he retains his security clearance.

"Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information."

patribotics.com

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Again: Nunes can't "retain" a security clearance BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD ONE!

[pnwmom]

17. Again, this is just hair-splitting semantics. He has clearance to read classified

documents. He just didn't obtain that clearance the way ordinary Americans do, by applying and getting approved.

The only question is whether his current investigation for mishandling documents could have resulted in the Ethics Committee or the IC temporarily limiting his access to top secret or SCIF documents.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. It is not hair-splitting semantics. The CIA says in these exact words

that members of Congress do not require security clearances. In government and law words have specific meanings, called "terms of art," they do not engage in hair splitting or arguing over semantics. Words mean exact things. "Security clearance" has a specific meaning. It is something that is granted only following an extensive background check and completion and examination of a detailed questionnaire called a Form 86. After that:

"Human Resources will submit the completed security questionnaire and other required forms, also known as the security package, to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability. Once the security package is received by the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability, it will be reviewed for completeness, and the information will be formally entered into a case management system. National agency record checks and scanned fingerprint checks are then conducted. A case manager will direct the background investigation to cover key events and contacts from the individual’s past and present history. A critical step in the background investigation is the face-to-face interview the individual will have with a DS investigator." https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm

Members of Congress are exempted from these requirements. Their access to classified information is not granted because they have security clearances but because they are members of Congress. Their access is not, itself, a security clearance as that term is understood.

If Mensch had done some basic research about the process her "story" would not have said that Nunes had his (nonexistent) top secret security clearance revoked, but only that his committee had restricted his access to certain materials related to the Russia investigation. But that wouldn't have been nearly so juicy as click bait. It wouldn't have had people breathlessly retweeting her. It's kind of boring, actually.

[pnwmom]

25. She was using verbal short-hand. You are hair-splitting.

It's like you've never read an article in the MSM that had a similar "error."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Oh, bullpucky. She wasn't using "verbal shorthand."

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 12:08 AM - Edit history (1)

She didn't make a mistake; she was flogging an inaccurate story to get hits on her blog and her Twitter account. It wouldn't have taken any more words to state that Nunes' committee had restricted his access to Russia material (even if that weren't true either) than it did for her to promote a false story that Nunes' TOP SECRET security clearance had been revoked.

Nice deke, though, from your original argument that Nunes really did have a security clearance even though he didn't, to claiming Mensch was just using verbal shorthand and made an "error."

[snooper2]

58. I thought that was twitter short hand

[Stinky The Clown]

16. That's not a news source in your link

[pnwmom]

18. You brought up Mensch. That is the site of hers where she has made the claim

that you say is incorrect.

So it's kind of relevant to find out what she actually said, don't you think?

[Stinky The Clown]

19. It is neither a news source nor a live link

[pnwmom]

23. So what? You quoted her and you quoted her incorrectly.

That site shows what she actually said.

And if you want to go to the site, then you can copy and paste.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. They don't get security clearances. See above. They are presumed to be

"trustworthy" (ha ha) by virtue of their position so they do not go through any government background check or fill out any of the rather extensive paperwork normally required by the intelligence agencies for other people who apply for security clearances. Their access to classified information is the result of membership in certain committees. Members of Congress do NOT get security clearances of any kind.

[pnwmom]

11. This is just semantics. They are cleared to read classified documents,

which is another way of saying they have a security clearance.

But the main point is what you yourself linked to. They only "receive preference" to access classified documents. They aren't guaranteed the access.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf and https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm :

Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Mensch claimed straight up that Nunes' TOP SECRET security clearance had been revoked.

That could not have been a true statement because Nunes never had a top secret or any other kind of security clearance; as a member of Congress he did not need one. Once again Mensch showed that she is ignorant about how government and legal procedures work, and apparently just took one of her "sources'" word for it without doing any checking. While it may be true that Nunes' committee has restricted his access, his so-called security clearance that he never had was never "revoked." You can call it just semantics if you want, but it's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't fact check or research her information. Five minutes on the Internet was enough to find a source that correctly explains why members of Congress don't receive or need security clearances. Mensch is a gossip monger and not a credible news source.

Added: It turns out (see below) that the committee itself can't restrict a member's access to materials. So however you want to characterize it semantically, Nunes has not lost access to anything that comes to his committee. Once again, Mensch has been making up sensational but unsupportable claims.

[pnwmom]

41. The Committee doesn't restrict a members access to its own materials.

But each originating agency has its own SCIF and controls access to its own SCIF.

Remember when Nunes was caught visiting a SCIF on the WH grounds and had to explain what he was doing there? He was there because he couldn't view those materials in the Congressional SCIF.

[onenote]

26. Actually you have seen the rules

You just refuse to accept them.

You take the bizarre view that unless something is expressly barred in the rules, it is allowed. So the fact that Ethics Committee Rules and the House Rules in general contain extremely detailed procedures for handling alleged misuse of secret information and those procedures put the authority to impose restrictions on a member in the hands of the full House, not the Ethics Committee and certainly not prior to a final ruling on whether the ethics violation has been proven apparently means nothing to you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9153051

[pnwmom]

29. And you have seen this, but you keep ignoring it:

Nunes, as an intelligence committee member, only received "preference" for his requests, on an individual basis. Therefore, the intelligence community had the ability to deny his requests.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf and https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm :

Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below."

[onenote]

33. See Rule 14(b) of the Intelligence Committee's rules:

(b) Access to Classified Information by Members. All members of the Committee shall at all times have access to all classified papers and other material received by the Committee from any source.

[pnwmom]

37. "all classified papers . . . received by the Committee."

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 01:55 AM - Edit history (2)

That rule doesn't apply to the most secret materials. Those can only be viewed in SCIFs, which are at the ORIGINATING AGENCIES -- not sent to the House committee.

Remember when Nunes went to the WH to view some classified materials? That's because he was viewing them in a SCIF -- he had to go there to see them. But if he wanted to see the materials held by the NSA, for example, he would have to go to the NSA's SCIF, punch in a code, and get allowed in by a guard.

Here's more:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-rooms-where-congress-keeps-its-secrets/451554/

They are tucked all across the Capitol complex, unassuming, behind doors numbered just like any other room. They are rarely mentioned in public, and what is viewed inside is spoken of even less.

But unlike many offices, these rooms host entourages of sharply uniformed military or intelligence officials throughout the day. And every now and then, glassy-eyed members of Congress emerge, shaking their heads, looking as if they've just seen a ghost.

They're the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (acronymed SCIFs and pronounced "skiffs&quot that serve as secure rooms where those with top-secret clearance can view some of the country's most classified information.

SNIP

"You have to check your electronics," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a member of the Intelligence Committee. "There's a guard out front. You just check your stuff, punch in your code or whatever you use to get in, and you just go in."
__________________________________________________________-



This is from a conservative site, but this description is correct:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/29/understanding-the-nunes-paradox/

Intelligence information is housed by compartments. Each intelligence unit holds intelligence unique to that compartment. The FBI Counter-Intelligence Unit would hold the intel information specific to their task or assignment. The CIA would hold their own compartmented intel; again, specific to their task and objectives. So too would the NSA or Pentagon.

SNIP

Expanding on Compartmented Intelligence. The originating intel agency holds their proprietary intel they create in their SCIF. They may also receive intel products created for them, which they will also host in their unique SCIF. Thus, intel is compartmentalized.

However, the White House -the executive branch- is also a host of intelligence information and consequently the White House has their own SCIF which holds intel products they would create (very little), or intel products created for them (the vast majority). An example of a product created for the executive branch would be the President’s Daily Briefing (PDB).

_________________________________________________________


And this is all confirmed by Nunes himself -- who couldn't review the materials he wanted to see at the Congressional SCIF. He had to go to the originating agency.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/27/did-devin-nunes-just-reveal-nsc-is-monitoring-agency-response-to-congress/

Nunes explained to Eli Lake he couldn’t use HPSCI’s own SCIF, just two miles away, because it didn’t have networked access to the reports that he was being shown.

In an interview Monday, Nunes told me that he ended up meeting his source on the White House grounds because it was the most convenient secure location with a computer connected to the system that included the reports, which are only distributed within the executive branch. “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress,” Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official.

[onenote]

44. Seriously? And you accuse others of "semantics"?

Classified is classified. All secret information is classified. You've drawn a distinction that doesn't exist anywhere except in your head.

And received by the Committee means received by the Committee. It doesn't matter where they view it. It's "received" by the Committee when they get access to it.

Finally, as was widely reported at the time of Nunes clandestine meeting at the White House, the House Intelligence Committee has its own SCIF. As far as I can tell, you are the only person on DU that buys into Nunes' explanation of why he had to go to the White House to view the documents -- and explanation that has been disputed as "disingenuous and misleading, at a minimum" by one expert in the field.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nunes-white-house-source-surveillance_us_58d92967e4b02a2eaab61087

[pnwmom]

46. SCIF is part of the highest level of classified -- it isn't all the same.

And you clearly couldn't be bothered reading the post.

Yes, the House intelligence committee haas its own SCIF. But -- because of the practice called 'compartmentalization" they cannot read all the SCIF documents of other agencies there. Why do you think Nunes had to go to the WH grounds to read certain SCIF documents? Because he couldn't read them in his own SCIF.


https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/27/did-devin-nunes-just-reveal-nsc-is-monitoring-agency-response-to-congress/

Nunes explained to Eli Lake he couldn’t use HPSCI’s own SCIF, just two miles away, because it didn’t have networked access to the reports that he was being shown.

In an interview Monday, Nunes told me that he ended up meeting his source on the White House grounds because it was the most convenient secure location with a computer connected to the system that included the reports, which are only distributed within the executive branch. “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress,” Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official.

[onenote]

49. Again, you are alone in thinking Nunes had to go to the WH.

That has been debunked by experts. He went there as part of a bizarre WH strategy that blew up in his and their faces. Schiff demanded that he get to see the same documents, which happened at the WH because he had no way to force the WH to do otherwise. But the entire committee was then given a briefing on those documents at the secure SCIF in the Capitol.

And the House Intelligence Committee's rules don't distinguish between levels of classification. You wish they did, but they don't.

[pnwmom]

50. SCIF documents are handled differently. Access to them is determined on

an individualized, and compartmentalized, basis.

[onenote]

52. So you believe Nunes. Good for you.

You may be the only one outside the Trumpists that believe him.

Even assuming that the info that he was shown at the WH was of the most super duper ultra top secret variety (which I don't believe has been established), the fact that information can be accessed by a particular computer set up doesn't mean that the information can't be transported in hard copy by a secure courier. As an expert in the area has stated, there are intelligence officials who are authorized to transport classified materials between facilities using secure lock bags". Do you honestly think that every time the intelligence committee gets access to some super duper ultra top secret material it traipses up to the White House or over to the CIA?

[pnwmom]

55. Yes, the most secret, SCIf documents remain under the control of

the originating agency, either in their own SCIF or in their physical control. Another agency can bring documents to be viewed in the Congressional SCIF, but they don't just drop them off with the intelligence committee or anyone else. After the briefing, they take them back to their own SCIF . And only people with approved access get into those SCIFs.

[Lee-Lee]

60. Actually transition by hard copy is highly, highly discouraged

Hard copies are easily compromised and with sensitive stuff require specific storage and inventory procedures that are cumbersome and a pain. You also have less record of who saw what at what time than you do on a network where it is all logged.

Taking hard copies of highly sensitive documents outside a SCIF for transport is considered a last resort to move information because it is time consuming, labor intensive and exposes a lot of risk.

The far preferred method is electronic viewing on the appropriate network.

[onenote]

63. Yes. But that doesn't mean members can't be briefed on such information in their own SCIF

which is exactly what happened here after Nunes midnight adventure at the WH was revealed.

[Lee-Lee]

64. It all depends

I worked in SCIF's. Still do occasionally.

I worked in a situation at one point where I had 3 different networks I needed access two. Two of them were in different SCIF's. One was my office as the entire floor was a SCIF, the other I went to a couple times a week to either access that network or attend briefing based on the operations managed on that network.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Uh . . . . .

. . . his security clearance is not revokable.

The rules are murky.

[onenote]

32. You are correct. And the rules aren't really murky

Maybe this can serve as the final word on the idea that Nunes could be denied access to secret information otherwise provided to the Intelligence Committee.

Rule 14(b) of the rules of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

(b) Access to Classified Information by Members. All members of the Committee shall at all times have access to all classified papers and other material received by the Committee from any source.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. There we are. It seems that even his own committee can't restrict his access

(which is unfortunate, but there it is). So it's even more wrong to claim that a security clearance that wasn't a security clearance was revoked - because access can't be limited. Thanks for finding this rule, and I hope the matter is now put to rest, at least until the next time Mensch makes shit up.

[onenote]

35. You're welcome. Although I doubt it will convince the true believers.

[LanternWaste]

51. The important thing is to trivialize those who hold different opinions than us

"Although I doubt it will convince the true believers..."

The important thing is to trivialize those who hold different opinions than us by using grade-school implication... that way, we may cower behind the implication when called on it, and maintain our pretense of righteousness.

Nice work!!!

[onenote]

53. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Anyone and everyone is free to disagree.

[pnwmom]

38. That rule doesn't apply to the most secret materials that can only be viewed in

Last edited Mon Jun 5, 2017, 02:14 AM - Edit history (3)

the SCIF of the ORIGINATING agency -- the NSA, the CIA, etc.

That rule only applies to lower level classified materials which can be "received" by the intelligence committee.

So that rule proves nothing about how Nunes would view the most secret materials. To see them, he would have to go to the SCIF housed by the originating agency, punch in a code, and get allowed in by a guard.

Here's more about the SCIFs.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-rooms-where-congress-keeps-its-secrets/451554/

They are tucked all across the Capitol complex, unassuming, behind doors numbered just like any other room. They are rarely mentioned in public, and what is viewed inside is spoken of even less.

But unlike many offices, these rooms host entourages of sharply uniformed military or intelligence officials throughout the day. And every now and then, glassy-eyed members of Congress emerge, shaking their heads, looking as if they've just seen a ghost.

They're the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (acronymed SCIFs and pronounced "skiffs&quot that serve as secure rooms where those with top-secret clearance can view some of the country's most classified information.

SNIP

"You have to check your electronics," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a member of the Intelligence Committee. "There's a guard out front. You just check your stuff, punch in your code or whatever you use to get in, and you just go in."
__________________________________________________________-



This is from a conservative site, but this description is correct:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/29/understanding-the-nunes-paradox/

Intelligence information is housed by compartments. Each intelligence unit holds intelligence unique to that compartment. The FBI Counter-Intelligence Unit would hold the intel information specific to their task or assignment. The CIA would hold their own compartmented intel; again, specific to their task and objectives. So too would the NSA or Pentagon.

SNIP

Expanding on Compartmented Intelligence. The originating intel agency holds their proprietary intel they create in their SCIF. They may also receive intel products created for them, which they will also host in their unique SCIF. Thus, intel is compartmentalized.

However, the White House -the executive branch- is also a host of intelligence information and consequently the White House has their own SCIF which holds intel products they would create (very little), or intel products created for them (the vast majority). An example of a product created for the executive branch would be the President’s Daily Briefing (PDB).

________________________________________________________


And this is all confirmed by Nunes himself -- who couldn't review the materials he wanted to see at the Congressional SCIF. He had to go to the originating agency.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/27/did-devin-nunes-just-reveal-nsc-is-monitoring-agency-response-to-congress/

Nunes explained to Eli Lake he couldn’t use HPSCI’s own SCIF, just two miles away, because it didn’t have networked access to the reports that he was being shown.

In an interview Monday, Nunes told me that he ended up meeting his source on the White House grounds because it was the most convenient secure location with a computer connected to the system that included the reports, which are only distributed within the executive branch. “We don’t have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress,” Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official.

[Stinky The Clown]

36. And we come full circle to my original thought:

Ms. Mensch is full of shit.

Thank you.

Good night.

[pnwmom]

40. Not really. It just shows many people don't understand about the SCIFs

that are used for viewing the most secret materials -- and how access is restricted to them.

There are guards at the doors and codes must be entered. A member of Congress without the correct code would be barred from access.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9160299

[Lee-Lee]

42. That's not how it would work

An agency won't just revoce a member of Congresses access to a SCIF.

There are policies and procedures in place for all of this. There is one way, and one way only for him to lose his access to classified materials and that is, as has already been shown, for Congress to do it.

None of the agencies will act unilaterally to stop providing access to a member of Congress in a position that allows the access. They don't have the authority to do so, for one. For another that would establish a VERY DANGEROUS precedent- if the agencies can just decide on their own to stop sharing information with the people who job it is to provide oversight then in reality there is no oversight and nobody can control them.

That's before we even get to the obvious point that no agency head will do that to the single most powerful person over the most powerful committee that controls their budget, structure and so much more.

As for the parsing of words with the term "preference" here, in the context it is used here what it means in that the staffers who work to provide the information responsive to requests from members of Congress will handle the requests from the members designated as receiving preference first and their requests get priority. It has nothing to do with them getting to pick and choose who gets what, it just means that when the workload of heavy their requests get handled first. It does not allow the agencies to deny any requests of their own volition.

[pnwmom]

47. Nunes is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee

for mishandling classified information. The intelligence agencies could have decided not to give him his "preference" for the time being.

[onenote]

54. That is your opinion unsupported by any actual evidence

and contrary to logic.

The rules of the committee dictate that intelligence shared with one member gets shared with all members. That's why there was a briefing for all members on the information that Nunes (and subsequently Schiff) viewed at the WH.

Do you believe that the Intelligence Committee as a whole is now being denied access to certain information because that information would be shared with Nunes?

As pointed out umpteen times, there are clearly defined processes and procedures in the rules of the House and the relevant (Intelligence and Ethics) committees by which a member can lose his or her rights and privileges, including the right and privilege of access to classified material as a member (and in this case Chairman) of the Intelligence Committee. While the intelligence community might decide not to share some information with anyone on the committee, it isn't going to (and indeed can't) limit access to only some members of the committee. You have to understand the potential for abuse in what you are suggesting is happening: the intelligence community only decides to share information with favored members (i.e, just the majority) on the committee, leaving minority members in the dark.

[pnwmom]

56. The most secret national security information is shared only on a "need to know" basis.

Since he has recused himself from the Russia investigation, he no longer has a "need to know."

[onenote]

61. The Russia information isn't the only top secret information the intelligence community gathers

Yet if you believe Mensche, Nunes can't get access to any super duper top secret info, which would include information having nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

Or is this just another example of Mensche's difficulty in communicating clearly in the English language.

[Lee-Lee]

57. That's not how it works

They don't get to decide if he has access or not.

Re-read gets everyone has explained to you here until you comprehend it.

[pnwmom]

59. They only give "preference" and for the most secret information,

it's on a "need to know' basis. Having recused himself he no longer has a need to know about the Russia investigation.

[Lee-Lee]

62. Go re-read where I explained what "preference" means in his regard

You keep assigning a meaning to it that is simply not accurate.

[onenote]

45. One of those people would be you.

Yes, there are guards at the doors of SCIFs. There is a guard at the door of the SCIF routinely used by the House Intelligence Committee. (All open hearings of the Committee are held in one room; a different room -- a SCIF -- is used for closed meetings) Indeed, the Committee's rules state that even the door to the Committee's office (which itself is not a SCIF) be guarded by Capitol Police at all times. (That is not the case for the typical House Committee office).

[pnwmom]

48. But not all SCIFs contain all SCIF information. The information is retained by

the originating agency, which controls the access to its own SCIF. This is called compartmentalization, and adds to the security of the most highly classified documents.