Not sure if this is an Urban Legend, but...
Back during the 2016 election I spent a lot of time reading rightwing forums, followed the FBIAnon thread, etc.
One of the things I read was that a new President is not granted access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) or SAP (Special Access Programs) until after 2 1/2 years in office. Although there aren't different "levels" of Top Secret clearance, there are branches of it. The farther away from the trunk one gets, the more specialized one's clearance needs to be. You would think that the POTUS has unrestricted access to everything, but I believe that is not the case. As far as I can tell, the President gradually is granted broader access to Top Secret. It makes sense why something like this would be implemented in our checks and balances system - a majority of the House must agree the President has been acting in good faith for the first half of their term.
Since his election, I have witnessed the machinations inside the Democratic Party to impeach Trump, and from where I'm sitting it they have been working against this 2 1/2 year deadline.
During the month of May, the drumbeat grew steadily louder. But recently it has dissipated somewhat. It seems to me that July 20 is approaching far too quickly for them to successfully impeach Trump by then, and they're giving up on it.
Which begs the question, what next? If impeachment was a matter of self preservation what do you suppose could be their backup plan? I think this is the calm before the storm.
Comments
JFK was President for 2 years, 10 months and 2 days,
and he and TPTB were seriously at odds over the very existence of the CIA. Do you suppose it would take four months and 2 days to resolve their differences?
Which begs the question, could could the Commander In Chief’s access to classified information be limited by Congress, or any other government entity, without violating the checks and balances of power as delineated by the Constitution? Or is the Constitution and our “representative democracy” perhaps nothing more than a pretext disguising a plutocratic power structure which keeps the rabble busy with the notion that their voting actually shapes their future.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
My answers to the questions
posed in your second paragraph:
1) No.
2) I don't know what the founders intended, but that's the way it seems to have turned out.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
" @ovals49 posed in your
second paragraph:
1) No. "
I think at least 'maybe,' if not 'yes.'
Both Carter and Bubba wanted info on UFOs /ET, and were denied.
I suspect there was other info they were denied.
I doubt that the MIC gives POTUS any more info than they have to, and the bare minimum of that.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I agree with you
as my later comment to this essay shows.
Does the MIC (or congressional-military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower put it) have de facto control of the presidency? I'd say yes. It's pretty clear the kinds of things they will do to ensure that remains the case.
However, the question I was responding to asked whether it's Constitutional for them to do so. No, I don't believe it is. It not only tears to shreds the balance of powers. It decimates the role and authority of the presidency, as set forth in the Constitution.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
I'm certainly not an expert
but my understanding is that POTUS is officially granted whatever access he needs to do the job he was elected by the American people to do. This is the person with their finger on the proverbial "red button". It makes no sense that he would be deprived of access to crucial information because he hadn't been in office long enough.
As we know, the military-industrial complex basically controls what the Chief Executive does. So as a practical matter, I'm sure that his foreign policy advisors (CIA, military leaders, et al) make most decisions as to what information gets to the president, who is expected to listen to their "wise counsel" and act accordingly.
(That's one reason why they are doing their best to keep Tulsi Gabbard far away from the Oval Office. She has explicitly said she will be actively hands-on with respect to foreign policy and not just knuckle under to her advisors.)
But I've never heard of a rigidly defined process like the one you've described, where the US Congress gets to formally pass judgment on a sitting president halfway through his term.
This makes no sense to me. After POTUS has been in office 2 1/2 years, the House of Representatives gets to vote on whether he's "acted in good faith" and deserves to get access to high level information? I doubt that seriously. I surely don't see anything in the US Constitution that provides for it.
If POTUS hasn't acted in good faith, the remedy would be impeachment, not withholding vital information from him. Otherwise, since we're still living in a democracy (such as it is), it's up to the American voters to remove the president.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
To get access to
compartmented TS programs usually requires a full background investigation, which does take several months to be completed. I don't know at all what the particulars are for POTUS but I doubt there's a formal time limit to him/her getting access other than that background check.
Now I will say I would imagine a full background on Trump would not only be "revealing" but would probably take significant time to fully adjudicate since he was not in any office prior that might require clearance, but the PTB I am sure have ways around that. And while all this classification is done not to "protect the American people" but to protect those in power in reality, I would bet there are many in that community who hate the idea of Trump being given full access. But as he is the CIC they have little choice but probably do try to "limit" what he sees as Wink mentions above, and since the man does not read they may not have to expend a big effort to limit him too much in that.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur