Thread by @McAdooGordon

I’ve done State security clearance cases for decades. I’ve never seen one that was unjustified based on the facts - foreign relatives or other contacts, foreign financial interests, etc. These restrictions allow people to get cleared who wouldn’t. /1 thehill.com/homenews/admin…

Now, I do only see the ones that people want to fight, so it could be that there are some that are insufficiently related to facts & people for whatever reason decide not to challenge them.

/2

The clearance guidelines permit foreign contacts & interests to be used as factors to deny or restrict clearance. History & data shows that those factors can be/have been vulnerabilities to security. Ethnicity by itself is an irrelevant factor, however. /3

To say that it’s a problem for State to consider those issues is unwise. All security determinations are risk assessments & have to take into account all known potential areas of compromise. The laudable goal of diversity does not change the risk calculation. /4

To say it’s a problem that his employer - State - was suspicious of him is naive & foolish. It completely misunderstands how clearance adjudication works. Security views all employees as potentially suspicious is the reality. Almost everyone can potentially be compromised. /5

It’s certainly possible, & State’s security division, Diplomatic Security can be extremely conservative/cautious in its actions, but I would be really surprised if there are many or any cases that lack a factual basis. /6

That being said, a separate due process review on this determination is a good idea to keep DS honest, because when this mechanism is used, it’s an off ramp - it almost always means the person doesn’t get any right of review of their adjudication. /7