Posts
Candidate Vetting Failure—Catastrophic Results
By Kent Clizbe
As an executive recruiter, I provided a 100% guarantee to my
clients. When I provided a company with a candidate for a job, that candidate
was ready, willing and able to do the job. If the candidate quit or was fired
in the first three months, I returned my fee. Never once did I have to repay a
fee.
A successful placement of a high level professional, usually
a double PhD, in return for a five figure placement fee, requires a multi-step
process. However, the most crucial step is vetting the candidate. I spent hours
talking to the candidate, assessing his motivations, expertise, and qualifications.
The candidate provided references and signed releases to allow me to obtain
records of his education, citizenship, criminal history, civil court actions,
and other documents.
As a CIA case officer, I dealt with foreigners, some with dubious
backgrounds, making outrageous claims, in search of solutions to their
problems. I had to assess their personalities, motivations, and the basics of
their story—were they who they said they were; did they have access to what
they claimed? This process relied on my street smarts, people skills, and
assessment abilities. Usually no documents were available for vetting. I was
successful because I ran operations like a business—with results required.
More than once, I uncovered problems in existing cases.
Agents lied to their case officers; some had been lying for years. In many
cases, the case officer, trained and experienced, but not street smart, or in
love with his agent, was not really interested in the truth. Continuing to run
a bad asset has very few immediate or obvious downsides. Uncovering lies makes
handling an asset much more difficult.
Meeting and developing a relationship with a potential espionage
agent requires the same care as recruiting a computational linguist for a
Silicon Valley start-up, but the stakes are much higher. Not in monetary terms,
but for the security of our country. Lives are at stake.
Placing a candidate who lies about his education with a
commercial client would damage both my pocketbook and my reputation. Recruiting
an espionage agent who works for an enemy intelligence service could be deadly.
Seven CIA employees paid with their lives in December 2010 when a “vetted”
candidate killed himself and his CIA case officer in Afghanistan.
Assessing personalities and detecting deception are two
skills that have been profitable—monetarily, and in fighting terrorists and
enemies. Vetting and validation of candidates is a difficult and unrewarding
process. But on-going vetting and validation of the bona fides of candidates is
a must, if you are serious about your reputation, or the security of your
country.
Vetting candidates for political office makes vetting
espionage agents, or dot.com engineers, look like child’s play. The damage a
liar or enemy infiltrator can do to our country is potentially astronomical.
In the 2010 Congressional elections, I vetted a Tea Party
candidate, without his cooperation. The issues I identified should have
disqualified him. Besides lying about his degree, and exaggerating his work in
the private sector, there were unanswered questions with the candidate’s long record
of military service. As is typical with those caught covering up the truth, the
candidate went on the attack.
The stakes for vetting a candidate for President of the
United States make any other kind of vetting work seem silly. If a liar, or
faker, or cheat was to make it into the White House our constitutional system
could be at risk.
In my experience, a valid candidate, with nothing to hide,
is eager to help in the vetting process. From providing full details of his
personal and professional background, to revealing deep personal issues, a valid
candidate works with those doing the vetting.
In the 2008 Presidential election, candidates were vetted by
the press in varying degrees. The media examined, analyzed and publicly
evaluated them. John McCain’s personal wealth, marriage, place of birth, mental
stability, and other important issues. McCain cooperated, provided details and
answered questions.
On the other hand, Barack Obama’s background remains nearly
a blank slate. His school records, from kindergarten to law school, remain
hidden. The story of his financial support is hidden—his private elementary and
high school in Hawaii, his international travel, his graduate and undergraduate
tuition and living expenses, and more. And these are just the beginning of the
Barack Obama vetting failure.
My extensive research into the espionage operations of the
Communist International (Comintern), detailed in Willing Accomplices, familiarized me with their techniques. One of
their most common tactics to respond to exposure is so pervasive that it could
be their motto: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
For a professional vetter, it is clear that one candidate in
2008 was concealing vital information, at best. The documents and stories
floated to support the candidate’s claims only raise more suspicion.
The most disturbing aspect of attempts to vet the mystery
candidate was the Obama camp’s vigorous response. Their stereotypical response
is nearly as damning as any information that could be revealed: Admitting
nothing, denying everything, and making counter-accusations, the vetting of
candidate Obama continues.
Do we need a professional candidate vetter? It looks like
the project may have just begun. The future of our country might depend on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment