But just to be clear this is a scenario where CISA's new director, hand-picked by Kristi Noem, asked to be "read in" to highly sensitive, compartmentalized intelligence shared with a select few people in the civilian agency by the NSA or CIA.

It was so sensitive that his predecessor had never asked to see the raw intel.

When a CISA security official asked for documentation of Noem appointee's need-to-know basis, the standard for controlled access programs, the official was suspended.

Noem's flunkie insisted again, officials asked him to take a polygraph. He failed it.

Then the those officials were also suspended.

For all of you who’ve never taken a counterintelligence polygraph it’s not at all like what I think you’re imagining (which is maybe the lifestyle one). It’s like 3 questions that are very simple yes or no questions and they have no licence to go off on a fishing expedition unless you give them a reason to do so. I think the questions from memory are basically:

1. Are you working for any organisation beyond this one?

2. Did anyone direct you to ask for these files?

3. Have you told anyone else about your plans with these files.

For whatever issues you may have with the limitations of a polygraph I promise you this is a big deal and incredibly unusual.

For those not in the know: they're unreliable to the point of uselessness and the US Government is somehow really enamoured with the fantasy of mind-reading and lie-detection. But what can you do when the government agencies suffer from chuunibyou?

* A polygraph test is probably standard procedure and career staff are being punished for administering it to a hack, and thus are punished for it.

Imagine how easy compromising or injecting compromised individuals into the chaotic and amateur Trump administration would be.