Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

BAR wrote:
The former POTUS and first lady and sitting Senator do not need to be
vetted by the FBI.


Uh-huh. That's why they were...

They were? By the FBI? Are you sure?

I am very familiar with FBI background checks. Virtually anybody, civilian
or military who's job requires a security clearance has one performed on
them. They are very routine in nature for basic (confidential and secret)
clearances. In the old days the FBI or an authorized representative
visited your neighborhood, interviewing friends, neighbors, work associates,
etc. I don't think that happens so much anymore. I know from personal
experience that now-a-days the check is more reliant on data bases of
information, credit checks, passport information for foreign travel etc, and
personal interviews are not routinely conducted unless something pops up in
the data base. Background checks for high level clearances (top secret,
etc.) are done quietly and without notice to the public because the fact
that the person being "checked" may end up with that level of a clearance or
above can be a breach of security in of itself, if made public.

I don't believe the "vetting" process for Presidential appointees to high
level cabinet positions is exactly the same that your buddy, the postmaster
assistant, experienced. The vetting going on here is more associated with
assuring the Obama staff that appointees will not cause a embarrassing
situation or be controversial due to past associations or practices.

We still get badged federal investigators, carrying side-arms, visiting
us in our homes interviewing us about our neighbors and friends for
security clearences. There is quite a bit of government work in my
geographic area and in my general field. Anyone holding a CS degree and
a TS with a full scope poly can get if they are still breathing with
minutes.