Trump supporters have rallied in support of his decision to run the White House like a family business. However, that decision now seems to be coming back to haunt Trump. The more he tries to plead ignorance regarding his son and son-in-law’s Russia connections, the more the Trump family’s own words regarding their closeness, remind the world that there is no way Trump was in the dark about the meetings with Russian officials that were taking place.
The Russia investigation aside, further complicating Trump’s ability to keep his family so close to him is the fact that their lack of political knowledge and experience makes it easier for legislators to challenge Trump’s family members holding the positions they’re in. In fact, one lawmaker has stepped forward to say that she wants Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, stripped of his security clearance; without it, there is very little Kushner can do in the White House.
Business Insider reported that Sen. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) introduced two amendments geared towards taking away Kushner’s security clearance. She spared no punches and made it clear that the ongoing investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia was precisely the reason she wanted Kushner to lose his security clearance.
The amendment reads:
‘None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to issue, renew, or maintain a security clearance for any individual in a position in the Executive Office of the President who is under a criminal investigation by a federal law enforcement agency for aiding a foreign government.’
Calling out Kushner’s lack of honesty on his security clearance application, Wasserman Schultz also wrote:
‘None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to issue, renew, or maintain a security clearance for any individual in a position in the Executive Office of the President who deliberately fails, as determined by the issuing department or agency, to disclose in the Standard Form 86 [the security clearance form] of such individual a meeting with a foreign national if such disclosure is required for such form.’
Although some Democrats supported the legislation and accompanying amendments, Republicans dismissed Wasserman Schultz’s diligence on the behalf of the American people. John Culberson (R-TX) reduced the amendments to being a “political stunt” and “utterly unnecessary.” He also argued:
‘We have to leave these decisions in the hands of security professionals, who make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. There are guidelines in place that make it clear that an individual is ineligible for a security clearance if they meet any one of 13 guidelines. These are used by all federal agencies already, including the FBI, which does security clearances for everyone in the government, including the White House.’
Serving as a reminder of why Democrats need to put up big numbers in the polls come mid-term elections, unfortunately, Wasserman Schultz’s amendments didn’t pass. The Republican-majority Appropriations Committee voted 22-30, against the legislation.
Wasserman Schultz isn’t alone in her belief that Kushner should no longer have a security clearance. Presidential historian and CNN contributor, Douglas Brinkley makes a compelling argument as to why Kusher’s security clearance should be revoked and Kusher be removed from his position, below:
Featured Image via Getty/Pool/Pool