C.I.A. Officer-Turned-Candidate Says PAC Obtained Her Security Application

[roughdraft274]

WASHINGTON — A former C.I.A. officer running for Congress accused a super PAC aligned with Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday of improperly obtaining her entire federal security clearance application — a highly sensitive document containing extensive personal information — and then using it for political purposes.

Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic candidate challenging Representative Dave Brat of Virginia, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Corry Bliss, the executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund, which has raised more than $100 million to help Republicans in the midterm elections. She demanded that the super PAC destroy all copies of the form and agree to not use the information in any fashion.

“I write as a former civil servant and as an American, in shock and anger, that you have tried to exploit my service to our country by exposing my most personal information in the name of politics,” she wrote.

The super PAC released a statement on Tuesday strongly denying Ms. Spanberger’s charge, saying that the document was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the United States Postal Service by America Rising, a separate Republican-aligned research firm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/us/politics/cia-officer-house-election-super-pac.html

1. I understand that in politics it's generally thought that nothing is off the table. But a security application? We are politicizing a security application? That's n incredibly personal document. It was apparently spread around by this PAC completely unredacted to journalists. Social security number, medical information, everything. This is clearly wrong.

2. How did they get this? They claim it was through a FOIA request, which only brings up moe questions. This application has never been released before through a FOIA request without it being redacted to the point where it's a useless piece of paper with a name on the top. Along with that, this form was requested and received fairly quickly. All of this leads to the obvious question, was this form released in this manner by the Trump administration in an attempt to help the republican in this race? This is troubling if it's a simple mistake. If it's on purpose, then I can't even imagine how bad this is.

3. How are we supposed to ask people to fill out a security application to serve their country if they know that down the road the administration might just release it completely unredacted. You're medical history, questions like have you ever cheated on your spouse, have you ever used drugs etc are on this form. And you're supposed to be completely honest for the sake of he country. People are going to be much less likely to go through that process to work for an administration that might release the form if it's ever politically convenient.

At the very least this should be investigated thoroughly and if anyone coordinated this for politics, heads should roll. If it's a simple mistake, then changes need to be made to ensure it doesn't happen again. It's simply not acceptable.

 

[apdst]

It's no more outrageous than leaking tax returns.

 

[Mach]

Yeah, I saw this yesterday, this is serious stuff...worse than lying to the public daily, this is all kinds of violations. Medical records too.
This will be investigated, and if there are crimes, they will be prosecuted I suspect.

****ing swamp is swamp is swamp. **** Republicans.

 

[roughdraft274]

It's no more outrageous than leaking tax returns.

Do you think leaking tax returns is a bad thing?

 

[NeverTrump]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/us/politics/cia-officer-house-election-super-pac.html

1. I understand that in politics it's generally thought that nothing is off the table. But a security application? We are politicizing a security application? That's n incredibly personal document. It was apparently spread around by this PAC completely unredacted to journalists. Social security number, medical information, everything. This is clearly wrong.

2. How did they get this? They claim it was through a FOIA request, which only brings up moe questions. This application has never been released before through a FOIA request without it being redacted to the point where it's a useless piece of paper with a name on the top. Along with that, this form was requested and received fairly quickly. All of this leads to the obvious question, was this form released in this manner by the Trump administration in an attempt to help the republican in this race? This is troubling if it's a simple mistake. If it's on purpose, then I can't even imagine how bad this is.

3. How are we supposed to ask people to fill out a security application to serve their country if they know that down the road the administration might just release it completely unredacted. You're medical history, questions like have you ever cheated on your spouse, have you ever used drugs etc are on this form. And you're supposed to be completely honest for the sake of he country. People are going to be much less likely to go through that process to work for an administration that might release the form if it's ever politically convenient.

At the very least this should be investigated thoroughly and if anyone coordinated this for politics, heads should roll. If it's a simple mistake, then changes need to be made to ensure it doesn't happen again. It's simply not acceptable.

I am quite impressed by how she is handling all of this. She's keeping composure while all her personal life is being leaked out. maybe she should be President instead of Mr. Everyone is Biased Against Me.

 

[roughdraft274]

I am quite impressed by how she is handling all of this. She's keeping composure while all her personal life is being leaked out. maybe she should be President instead of Mr. Everyone is Biased Against Me.

True. She seems to be handling the fire muh better than our POTUS. Not that the bar is being set that high.

 

[jmotivator]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/us/politics/cia-officer-house-election-super-pac.html

1. I understand that in politics it's generally thought that nothing is off the table. But a security application? We are politicizing a security application? That's n incredibly personal document. It was apparently spread around by this PAC completely unredacted to journalists. Social security number, medical information, everything. This is clearly wrong.

I think the start of your point and the end of your point cancel each other out. Nothing is below politics, and it has been that way for a very long time. Why should it be any different for a eQip application? Frankly, I am surprised that eQip is subject to FOIA, but if it is then it is. I'm guessing the reason for that is because there is not much in an eQip application that isn't already a matter of public record. It could be redacted and you wouldn't even know it's missing if you aren't familiar with the application.

2. How did they get this? They claim it was through a FOIA request, which only brings up moe questions. This application has never been released before through a FOIA request without it being redacted to the point where it's a useless piece of paper with a name on the top. Along with that, this form was requested and received fairly quickly. All of this leads to the obvious question, was this form released in this manner by the Trump administration in an attempt to help the republican in this race? This is troubling if it's a simple mistake. If it's on purpose, then I can't even imagine how bad this is.

Well, if FOIA was not supposed to release it then she has an argument, if the release followed protocol then she doesn't. I fail to see what is so sacred about these applications, having had to fill many of them out over my career. There is nothing in them that isn't public record somewhere already. The only question that comes to mind that wouldn't be readily available would be questions of past drug use.

But then, if she answered "No" to prior drug use would that be something that would even be redacted?

3. How are we supposed to ask people to fill out a security application to serve their country if they know that down the road the administration might just release it completely unredacted. You're medical history, questions like have you ever cheated on your spouse, have you ever used drugs etc are on this form. And you're supposed to be completely honest for the sake of he country. People are going to be much less likely to go through that process to work for an administration that might release the form if it's ever politically convenient.

That is kind of a weird argument. I have to file an eQip every few years to re-up my clearance and this news won't change that. I'd be interested to see the application she filed out of curiosity since the level of detail has a big difference from Public Trust up to TS/SCI.

At the very least this should be investigated thoroughly and if anyone coordinated this for politics, heads should roll. If it's a simple mistake, then changes need to be made to ensure it doesn't happen again. It's simply not acceptable.

Maybe it's not a mistake, in which case there is no need for an investigation.

 

[Verax]

The president's tax returns are off limits but this is fair game? I don't understand...

 

[roughdraft274]

I think the start of your point and the end of your point cancel each other out. Nothing is below politics, and it has been that way for a very long time. Why should it be any different for a eQip application? Frankly, I am surprised that eQip is subject to FOIA, but if it is then it is. I'm guessing the reason for that is because there is not much in an eQip application that isn't already a matter of public record. It could be redacted and you wouldn't even know it's missing if you aren't familiar with the application.



Well, if FOIA was not supposed to release it then she has an argument, if the release followed protocol then she doesn't. I fail to see what is so sacred about these applications, having had to fill many of them out over my career. There is nothing in them that isn't public record somewhere already. The only question that comes to mind that wouldn't be readily available would be questions of past drug use.

But then, if she answered "No" to prior drug use would that be something that would even be redacted?



That is kind of a weird argument. I have to file an eQip every few years to re-up my clearance and this news won't change that. I'd be interested to see the application she filed out of curiosity since the level of detail has a big difference from Public Trust up to TS/SCI.



Maybe it's not a mistake, in which case there is no need for an investigation.

If they got the document was released through FOIA then it was released with her social security number and medical information all unredacted. This has never been done before according to reports.

I understand that some won't see it this way, but the idea of the federal government releasing completely unredacted security clearance applications to political organizations is not a good thing for the country. You seem to be saying that you wouldn't mind the government handing out your social security number and your medical history along with all of the personal questions found on this form etc to anyone who requests it. I can't bring myself to actually believe that you'd be ok with that. I also feel very sue in saying that if the Obama administration released this on a republican you'd have a change of heart.

 

[apdst]

Do you think leaking tax returns is a bad thing?

Sure do. Don't you?

 

[apdst]

The president's tax returns are off limits but this is fair game? I don't understand...

Neither are fair game.

 

[EnigmaO01]

It's no more outrageous than leaking tax returns.

Both are wrong. So what's your point? Two wrongs make a right again? Or is it whataboutism again?

 

[CMPancake]

An SF86 form (form to apply for a federal security clearance) has a ton of personal identifying information on there. Some of which include your Social Security Number, passport information, home of record, and the personal identifying information for family, and I think 5-6 of your close friends (It's been a couple years since I've seen an SF86 form.) As far as I'm aware, the only group that can disclose the SF86 form would be the individual who filled out the form.

 

[apdst]

Both are wrong. So what's your point? Two wrongs make a right again? Or is it whataboutism again?

You're right. How does it feel?

 

[Winston]

Yeah, I saw this yesterday, this is serious stuff...worse than lying to the public daily, this is all kinds of violations. Medical records too.
This will be investigated, and if there are crimes, they will be prosecuted I suspect.

****ing swamp is swamp is swamp. **** Republicans.

and just like the IRS scandal and now the special counsel probe, conservatives will use it as proof that there is an institutional bias against them.

 

[roughdraft274]

Sure do. Don't you?

Yep. I've always been on record that if a lawyer or a government worker is caught leaking tax returns (or anything illegally) that they should be brought to justice.

So if you think tax returns being leaked are a bad thing, do you also think that the government handing out security applications completely unredacted is a bad thing?

 

[CMPancake]

I'd be interested to see the application she filed out of curiosity since the level of detail has a big difference from Public Trust up to TS/SCI.

She would have filled out an SF86 form for up to TS/SCI. Almost all positions within the CIA require a TS/SCI clearance. Those forms are protected under the Privacy Act.

 

[roughdraft274]

An SF86 form (form to apply for a federal security clearance) has a ton of personal identifying information on there. Some of which include your Social Security Number, passport information, home of record, and the personal identifying information for family, and I think 5-6 of your close friends (It's been a couple years since I've seen an SF86 form.) As far as I'm aware, the only group that can disclose the SF86 form would be the individual who filled out the form.

The NYT and WaPo have reported on this and I believe the reporting is that they have been released in the past, but so redacted that it's basically a name and the purpose for needing the security clearance. All other personal information redacted. Releasing something like this completely unredacted would be akin to releasing your tax returns completely unredacted, only probably worse.

 

[apdst]

Yep. I've always been on record that if a lawyer or a government worker is caught leaking tax returns (or anything illegally) that they should be brought to justice.

So if you think tax returns being leaked are a bad thing,
do you also think that the government handing out security applications completely unredacted is a bad thing?

Absolutely, unredacted, or otherwise. No matter which party does it.

 

[roughdraft274]

Absolutely, unredacted, or otherwise. No matter which party does it.

Very good. I'm glad we agree on this.

Do you agree it should be investigated (by the IG or by congress or something like that) and anyone who knowingly did this should be brought to justice? Or if found to be an error, new procedures put in place and possibly firing the person if found to be complete inept?

 

[apdst]

Very good. I'm glad we agree on this.

Do you agree it should be investigated[/b[ (by the IG or by congress or something like that) and anyone who knowingly did this should be brought to justice? Or if found to be an error, new procedures put in place and possibly firing the person if found to be complete inept?

Sure, just like any other leak, regardless of party. Someone should go to jail. Just like when President Trump's tax return was leaked. Do you agree?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Very good. I'm glad we agree on this.

Do you agree it should be investigated (by the IG or by congress or something like that) and anyone who knowingly did this should be brought to justice? Or if found to be an error, new procedures put in place and possibly firing the person if found to be complete inept?

I can easily agree to this. All of it.

What I wonder though is why all the Trump haters didn't demand the same when a certain someone released 1 years worth of Trumps tax returns. In fact they didn't just not call for such an investigation, they clapped in glee at the leak. Along with hooting, hollering ecstatically, dancing and jigging. All excited that they might, just might, find something worthy of getting rid of him.

 

[jmotivator]

If they got the document was released through FOIA then it was released with her social security number and medical information all unredacted. This has never been done before according to reports.

I understand that some won't see it this way, but the idea of the federal government releasing completely unredacted security clearance applications to political organizations is not a good thing for the country. You seem to be saying that you wouldn't mind the government handing out your social security number and your medical history along with all of the personal questions found on this form etc to anyone who requests it. I can't bring myself to actually believe that you'd be ok with that. I also feel very sue in saying that if the Obama administration released this on a republican you'd have a change of heart.

I'd have to see the document in question to have a full opinion on it, but it comes down to either it is policy or it isn't.

I've seen too many of these stories lately end up to be considerably less than advertised to immediately take a position on it. I don't see where the document in question has actually been presented to the public, and the PACs in question have only referenced her employment record... why they would need an eQip application for that I wouldn't know.

I would say that if this is a USPS clearance application then it is likely a public trust, which isn't as involved as you might think. Also there are actually two applications you file for a clearance, there is the preliminary application where you put down some basic information that can be easily tracked to make sure that 1) you aren't a liar and 2) You haven't murdered anyone and 3) you have a good credit record. The Second application is the long form and goes through 5 to 10 years and varying degrees of depth of your personal history depending on the level of clearance.

 

[JasperL]

I can easily agree to this. All of it.

What I wonder though is why all the Trump haters didn't demand the same when a certain someone released 1 years worth of Trumps tax returns. In fact they didn't just not call for such an investigation, they clapped in glee at the leak. Along with hooting, hollering ecstatically, dancing and jigging. All excited that they might, just might, find something worthy of getting rid of him.

It is almost certain the tax return was released outside the IRS. They were unsigned and stamped, "Client Copy." Your deflection attempt is a Fail.

 

[Renae]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/us/politics/cia-officer-house-election-super-pac.html

1. I understand that in politics it's generally thought that nothing is off the table. But a security application? We are politicizing a security application? That's n incredibly personal document. It was apparently spread around by this PAC completely unredacted to journalists. Social security number, medical information, everything. This is clearly wrong.

2. How did they get this? They claim it was through a FOIA request, which only brings up moe questions. This application has never been released before through a FOIA request without it being redacted to the point where it's a useless piece of paper with a name on the top. Along with that, this form was requested and received fairly quickly. All of this leads to the obvious question, was this form released in this manner by the Trump administration in an attempt to help the republican in this race? This is troubling if it's a simple mistake. If it's on purpose, then I can't even imagine how bad this is.

3. How are we supposed to ask people to fill out a security application to serve their country if they know that down the road the administration might just release it completely unredacted. You're medical history, questions like have you ever cheated on your spouse, have you ever used drugs etc are on this form. And you're supposed to be completely honest for the sake of he country. People are going to be much less likely to go through that process to work for an administration that might release the form if it's ever politically convenient.

At the very least this should be investigated thoroughly and if anyone coordinated this for politics, heads should roll. If it's a simple mistake, then changes need to be made to ensure it doesn't happen again. It's simply not acceptable.

Based on reporting by BuzzFeed News, he said, the release could have been a bureaucratic breakdown, because the records appear to have been sent from the National Personnel Records Center to the Postal Service.

“Nothing shows the breakdown more clearly than the fact that these were completely unredacted,” he said. “People get fired for releasing Social Security numbers and addresses and phone numbers.”

According to records provided by the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Postal Service human resources department released a form completed by Spanberger called Standard Form 86, which is required for people applying for federal law enforcement and national security jobs. She completed the form when applying to become a federal postal inspector.

https://www.richmond.com/news/virgi...cle_a8d24345-af9b-5dd1-ab47-72622a5d6093.html