What was Strzok doing investigating for the FBI without a security clearance?

[timosman]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...clearance.html

July 8, 2018

In the intelligence world, a security clearance, especially a really high one, is not only the job requirement, it's the ultimate status object. It shields one from having to answer questions from curious outsiders, and it gives a wide berth for actions that other people are not allowed to do, such as surveillance and spying

So why was Peter Strzok running around without a security clearance, in the nation's top counterintelligence outfit, as its director of counterintelligence?

This is so baffling.

Here is the tweet from investigative reporter Paul Sperry, seconded by Sundance over at Conservative Treehouse:

According to Sundance, the guy lost his clearance after flunking a routine polygraph exam around January of 2016, well before President Trump was elected. That would have been back when everyone was saying Trump's candidacy was kind of a joke and he was supposedly paying people to cheer him. There were about a dozen Republican candidates and a few Democratic candidates running for president at the time, including Strzok's own reported favorite, John Kasich.

What's unclear is why he flunked his polygraph, which was declared 'out of scope' according to testimony linked on Sundance's site from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It was also confirmed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier, in a more general way.

Sperry observed that as Strzok supposedly investigated Trump as a national security risk, he himself was a national security risk, unable to so much as pass a polygraph. What makes this so eye-popping is that this guy was all his life an intelligence professional. He knew what polygraphs were and he probably passed a lot of them as he bit and clawed his way to the top of the counterintelligence unit. He gets to the top and thinks he can lie his way out of a polygraph? He couldn't have been that stupid. You never lie in your polygraph, no matter how stupid or incompetent or dishonest you have been. You tell the truth, because flunking the polygraph is un-fixable, you flunk your polygraph and you're out. Anything else you have done will get you some kind of yelling-at but you won't be out.

So why did he flunk his polygraph, and at that pre-Trump date? Just so strange. What it suggests is that Obama-style standards were in place, and James Comey was running things. If Ben Rhodes could be allowed to operate without a top security clearance after he flunked his background investigation (initially), well then anyone else could flunk too and go right on carrying on. It makes one wonder if Strzok knew that (and as chief of CI, he knew a lot of stuff) and realized it didn't really matter, he had seen it before.

In any case, it provides lots of material for congressional investigators to explore. Sundance noted that there was an institutional problem going on, with top officials protecting unworthy members as a means of closing ranks. It could be that, or it could be the Obama end to all standards. In any case, it suggests an agency in need of rebuilding, and that can't happen soon enough.

[Zippyjuan]

So why was Peter Strzok running around without a security clearance, in the nation's top counterintelligence outfit, as its director of counterintelligence?

This is so baffling.

Seems his clearance was revoked in 2018- not 2016. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ity-clearance/

Strzok stripped of security clearance

Friday, June 22, 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions confirmed Thursday that disgraced, politically biased FBI official Peter Strzok has been stripped of his security clearance following the devastating and damaging Inspector General’s report on his activities during the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

In an interview with radio host Howie Carr, Sessions said “Mr. Strzok, as I understand, has lost his security clearance.”

Strzok has been in the eye of a political hurricane since December 2017 when tens of thousands of his text message exchanges with Lisa Page, an attorney at the FBI, were made public.

Rand Paul confirms:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ret-clearances

FBI appears to confirm Peter Strzok, Lisa Page still have top-secret clearances

by Steven Nelson

April 11, 2018

The FBI appears to confirm in a recent letter that two officials who traded disparaging remarks about President Trump still have top secret security clearances.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., published a letter Wednesday from FBI Assistant Director Gregory Brower, who wrote "[a]ll FBI employees must maintain a Top Secret security clearance" in response to an inquiry about FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

"BREAKING: FBI admits that @realDonaldTrump haters still have Top Secret security clearances which allows them to access sensitive private information!" Paul wrote on Twitter.

A spokeswoman for the FBI's national press office declined to comment on whether Paul's interpretation is accurate.

[timosman]

Seems his clearance was revoked in 2018- not 2016. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ity-clearance/

That's the problem. His security clearance should have been revoked in 2016 when he flunked - was out of scope - on the routine polygraph test. Probably because of a extramarital affair.

[Swordsmyth]

Seems his clearance was revoked in 2018- not 2016. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ity-clearance/



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ret-clearances

The OP says he lost it in 2016, why couldn't he have gotten it back and then lost it again?

[Zippyjuan]

That's the problem. His security clearance should have been revoked in 2016 when he flunked - was out of scope - on the routine polygraph test. Probably because of a extramarital affair.

What does "out of scope" mean?

[timosman]

[Zippyjuan]

This forum suggests that "out of scope" means it was too long since the previous one (five year limit)- not any "failed" test. https://forum.federalsoup.com/defaul...955#post791971

Listening to the testimony, it sounds like Stzok was informed of that via letter from the FBI in January 2016 and took a new test shortly thereafter which brought him back into compliance. See 1:45.

[timosman]

This forum suggests that "out of scope" means it was too long since the previous one (five year limit)- not any "failed" test. https://forum.federalsoup.com/defaul...955#post791971

Listening to the testimony, it sounds like Stzok was informed of that via letter from the FBI in January 2016 and took a new test shortly thereafter which brought him back into compliance. See 1:45.

The polygraph raised flags @2:05:

[Zippyjuan]

"Out of scope" is not a "failed" polygraph. Just means too long since the last one.

[timosman]

"Out of scope" is not a "failed" polygraph. Just means too long since the last one.

You get 50% for accuracy on this one.

[nobody's_hero]

You get 50% for accuracy on this one.

He's out of scope.