In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, a former CIA agent running for Congress as a Democrat whose security clearance application was inappropriately leaked to a GOP opposition research firm explained updates to her scandal — and why it matters.
Responding to the Postal Service’s claim that her security clearance application was given to the opposition research firm and later to a Paul Ryan-linked super-PAC, candidate Abigail Spanberger said that the explanation “doesn’t change that it was released in violation of the Privacy Act.”
“I am incredibly disappointed that this human error which resulted in a violation of law so profoundly impacted me — but I’m glad that this came to light,” Spanberger continued.
The candidate then reiterated an additional detail revealed in a New York Times article published earlier in the day — that a firm she hired for her campaign filed a Freedom of Information Act request in December 2017 but still hasn’t heard back.
In contrast, the opposition research group that later released information from her unredacted clearance application appeared to have gotten the information in under a month.
Later in the interview, Spanberger suggested that although she’s part of a “national wave” of candidates with military and national security backgrounds running for office as Democrats, it’s possible some may be deterred after her doxxing.
“You expect to be hit with a couple of attacks here and there but this is beyond the pale,” the candidate said. “And what it does, and what it signals to anyone who filled out an SF-86, the national security questionnaire — I think there’s probably people around the country taking pause of what might happen with the information they thought was safe.”
Nevertheless, “many of us are running because we want to stand up for what is right and get this country on track and be part of changing not just the tone in Washington but also the principles of right and wrong,” Spanberger said.
Watch below, via MSNBC:
‘The monarch has taken a body blow’: Ex-prosecutor explains why Court ruling is devastating for Trump
On MSNBC Thursday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery broke down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling against President Donald Trump on immunity from subpoenas.
"I think what it says is that the monarch has taken a body blow as a result of what will be an historic decision, as we've indicated," said Flannery. "I think that the position of the DA in New York is very special, because he can speed this up in a way that the House can',t and has a specific strength, I think, in this case, that it is criminal."
"The most significant thing about it is this is the first Supreme Court case in which there's ever been agreed that a prosecutor could subpoena a president," added Flannery. "Prior prosecutions have been federal, that have been treated by the Supreme Court. So this is a big difference. The majority of the court, 7-2, basically said, from 1740 on, the public is entitled to the testimony, to the evidence of any person. They said that the documents — the question is the character documents, not the character of the person. In this case, what we have is a situation which I bet that the DA is going to go to the court as soon as possible, move to compel an appearance to their subpoena, and going to have the discussion as to what if anything may be limited or excluded and get production as quickly as possible."
Trump officials demanded the Army ‘dig for misconduct’ to justify firing Lt. Col. Vindman
This week, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman willingly left the Army after decades of honorable service. He cited a concerted campaign of "bullying" from the highest branches of power in the United States, and now more details are becoming known.
A New Yorker report revealed that top aides to President Donald Trump were told that they needed to find dirt on Vindman that could justify the firing of the decorated war hero.
"Vindman expected to go to the National War College this fall—a low-profile assignment—then take another foreign posting," the New Yorker reported. "But, in a final act of revenge, the White House recently made clear that Trump opposed Vindman’s promotion. Senior Administration officials told [Defense Secretary Mark] Esper and Ryan McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army, to dig for misconduct that would justify blocking Vindman’s promotion. They couldn’t find anything, multiple sources told me. Others in the military chain of command began to warn Vindman that he would never be deployable overseas again—despite his language skills and regional expertise."
Russian bounties: Pentagon vows ‘action’ if intel confirmed
Top Pentagon officials pledged Thursday to "take action" if the US military could corroborate intelligence suggesting Moscow paid militants linked to the Taliban to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan.
General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper spoke before a congressional committee as the Trump administration comes under pressure to explain media reports claiming the president was briefed on the intelligence -- but did nothing in response.
Milley said the information was "not corroborated."
"We'll get to the bottom of it. We are going to find out if, in fact, it's true. And if it is true, we will take action," he continued, without specifying what kind of action might be taken.