Spanberger asks how her personal information was released

That U.S. Congressional candidate Abigail Spanberger's highly classified federal security clearance application became public this week is not in question.

But whether it was obtained and distributed illegally as part of a political smear campaign, accidentally released by the United States Postal Service as part of a Freedom of Information Act request or made public in some other way is up for debate.

Spanberger, the Democratic nominee for the Seventh Congressional District (which includes the western portion of Henrico County) alleged yesterday that the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC obtained and released her fully unredacted Standard Form-86 federal security clearance application to at least one media organization – the Associated Press – which then showed it to her.

But the PAC and the Republican Party of Virginia denounced those claims, saying instead that another Republican PAC – America Rising – obtained the information legally through a standard Freedom of Information Act request from the United States Postal Service. (Spanberger once worked a law enforcement job for the USPS prior to joining the CIA as a counter-terrorism officer.)

"Abigail Spanberger should be absolutely ashamed of falsely accusing a conservative group of illegal activity," Republican Party of Virginia Executive Director John Findlay said in a press release this afternoon. "Her story's swift unraveling is beyond embarrassing and shows she has much more in common with Barney Fife than James Bond. This episode makes it abundantly clear that Spanberger is terrified of Seventh District voters finding out about her background and she will go to any length, including lying, to hide her record from the public."

'No legal way they could have gotten' file

Later this afternoon, Spanberger pushed back against those allegations, defending herself during a conference call with reporters during which she alleged that the documents shouldn't have been released and insinuated that the claims of both Republican PACs didn't add up.

"There is no legal way they could have gotten a fully unredacted SF-86," Spanberger said.

Release of such a document is a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, Spanberger's spokesman, Justin Jones, told the Citizen.

CLF officials suggested in a release yesterday that Spanberger was trying to hide from her past – specifically from the fact that in 2002 and 2003 she was a substitute teacher at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, Virginia, a school that produced several known terrorists.

“It should surprise no one that Ms. Spanberger would want to hide from voters that she worked at a school that produced some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists,” CLF spokeswoman Courtney Alexander said yesterday.

But Spanberger vehemently denied those claims today, telling reporters that she had nothing to hide and willingly listed her employment at the school on the SF-86 form – and that she later received ‘secret’ and ‘top-secret’ clearances from the CIA.

"It isn't something that I frequently talk about on the campaign trail, primarily because I was also a lifeguard, I was also a bartender, I was also a waitress, I was a customer service representative for a FINANB bank back in the day," Spanberger said. "There are other jobs that I've held that really have zero relevance to my ability or my run for Congress.

"The fact that this group, Congressional Leadership Fund, would try to make some sort of link between my long-term substitute teacher job and terrorist connections. . . it is particularly infuriating. I find those [insinuations] particularly offensive because the entirety of my time with the CIA I worked counter-terrorism cases. I took risks for this country. I met with people who most people did not want to meet with. I went to parts of town most people wouldn't want to go to, and I did that to keep Americans safe.”

'A huge violation of trust'

Spanberger and incumbent Republican Dave Brat are locked in a race that some political pundits view as too close to call. Brat’s campaign has not officially commented on the release of Spanberger’s SF-86 form.

Spanberger’s campaign yesterday filed a cease-and-desist notice with the CLF, demanding that the organization stop distributing Spanberger’s SF-86 file. The organization responded by penning its own cease-and-desist notice to Spanberger’s campaign today, vowing legal action if it continued making claims about how CLF acquired the information.

“CLF follows the letter of the law in examining any candidate’s background,” Alexander said. “Ms. Spanberger was no different.”

That an SF-86 form could be made public in unredacted form should concern all political parties and Americans, Jones told the Citizen.

"The broader implications on a national security level are very troubling. . . very troubling all around,” he said. “This is a huge violation of trust. We've had many veterans get in touch with us saying, ‘I filled this [form] out, am I going to be exposed?’”

Spanberger’s campaign is waiting to get more information about who released the SF-86 form before determining if it will pursue any legal action, Jones told the Citizen.

Late today, two Democratic members of the U.S. House – Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Gerald Connolly of Virginia – wrote to the acting inspector general of the Postal Service, Tammy Whitcomb, requesting an investigation into the matter.

“The release of Ms. Spanberger’s unredacted SF-86 to any individual or entity without her permission in violation of the law would call into question the Postal Service’s processes for responding to FOIA requests,” they wrote.

Among seven questions the two men asked in their letter:

• why did the USPS not seek a privacy waiver from Spanberger prior to releasing her information?

• were any of the USPS officials who handled the FOIA request aware that Spanberger was seeking elected office?

• what actions has the USPS taken to prevent similar unauthorized release of information in the future?