Back in the day, a Superintendent level manager at LLNL, set himself up for lab paid business related trips. His legally blind wife, decided to surprise him by adding herself on to his hotel reservation. To her surprise, the reservation desk, said to the wife, the second occupancy for the room was aleady registered, that being a subordinate administrative female assistant within the superintenden’s sphere of influence. Well, the blind wife’s coworkers in HR from that point forward, thought Mr. Superintendent was basically a low life scum bag.
But, after this low mark, could anything occur worse? Yes. And again, a free pass in terms of security clearance, and future advancement.
Comments
It looks like there are a few of them.
acceptable ethical behavior.
to maintain your OWN security clearance, and to uphold security clearance criteria.
Thinking these LLNL superintendent good old boys, 40+ years after Oppenheimer, weren’t of Oppenheimer’s intellectual significance or even close. More importantly, security clearance requirements have evolved and adapted from the 1940s,
if you actually didn’t know that. “Scum bag” LLNL dude, just sanctioned the way for more of the same unacceptable lab behavior for his division level or below successors. Not the reply you were hoping for?
Thanks for this blog to keep these things out from under the rug.
Yes, this blog helps shine a light.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202004/are-open-marriages-happier
In fact, I know DEI is no longer a thing, but it was a traditional Tibetan practice for a woman to marry two brothers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet
https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9252/4/4/29
Furthermore, the leaders of the Mongol Empire felt endowed with the legitimacy to conquer the world after being blessed by Tibetan Buddhism as Mahakala, the dark incarnation of Avalokiteshvara.
An orange comment to an apple topic. If you ever held a security clearance, you’d know extramarital affairs as described in the adjudicative guidelines for security clearances, are very clear. It appears you are carrying water or trying to protect one or more of the aforementioned LLNL swinging d_cks.
Scooby, this commenter is purposely off topic, and serving as a red herring in the attempt to pivot away from this very serious topic.
https://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/legal-swindle
Yes, but more specifically, at all TAXPAYER funded costs. Sounds ripe for the Federal DOGE team to investigate the pervasiveness of this tax payer rip off “legal swindle”.