Ukraine Whistleblower’s Attorney Helped Pedophiles Get Security Clearance

A February  2018 tweet by Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the Ukraine phone call Whistleblower, appears to indicate him assisting pedophiles obtain government security clearance. 

An article from Slate raised the question of how a domestic abuser obtained security clearance. Zaid responded in a tweet that he has gotten clearances for people who have child pornography problems.

There are only two real options here.

The first is that these were people who were convicted of child pornography possession and he managed to get them security clearance. It’s pretty unlikely that someone who has been arrested for and convicted of child pornography possession is getting a security clearance. That is way too red of a flag. Even if this is the case, assisting someone convicted of child porn possession with obtaining security clearance who clearly cannot control themselves is an absolute disservice.

 These aren’t people you should be assisting with obtaining anything.

 The second is that Zaid was aware these people enjoyed child pornography, but they had not been caught. This is much more likely, and if this were to be the case, it raises far greater concerns. There’s no settlement in child porn possession as there are in domestic disputes.

I’m going out on a limb and guess that child pornography possession is not something people list as a qualification. Nor is it something they would ever disclose to someone they were not sending or receiving this sort of content with. This would mean that Zaid is only aware of this because this is how he knows them.

 This second option is looking more likely as well because Zaid appears to be drawn to children’s attractions and children’s entertainment, despite not having children.

 Zaid previously posted that you don’t need children to enjoy going to Disney Land.

Okay, that may be true.

 But hanging around children’s water parks is also a little weird.

And the history of YouTube videos he’s favorited?

Something is definitely off here. It certainly appears far more damning than not.