Shadow IT can be defined as software and hardware solutions as well as associated manpower used in organization
that are neither approved not supported by the formal IT organization. This is a
double edge sword. It can help to introduce innovative things into corporation, but it also can completely destroy the security and
endanger the vital corporate data.
Hillary Clinton
email scandal is a classic story of use of shadow IT on the highest levels of the US government. She went as far as creating hew own private parallel IT infrastructure. Her
shadow IT infrastructure included smartphones tablets, laptops, a email server with Web frontend. All set-up using semi-qualified staff
connected to Clinton foundation, which specializes mainly in serving non-profits and charities. This was she actually
endangered the US
diplomatic communications during her tenure as the Secretary of State.
The existence of Shadow IT implies a failure on the part of IT to provide the services to meet the users need. As such this problem
is a typical sign of the rotting of IT organizations ("fish rots from the head") -- a widespread phenomenon due to promotion of incompetent
manages, outsourcing and other related phenomenon. IT is no longer young and losing IQ this is just one of the ailment of the old age.
According to old Gartner forecast, by 2015, 35% of enterprise IT expenditures for most organizations will be managed outside the
IT department's budget. While now in 2019, this figure looks definitely overinflated we definitely can talk about around 10% of
budget here (unless we count outsourcing), although in research organizations shadow IT might be well over 50%. Wikipedia defines
this widespread phenomenon the following way:
Shadow IT, also known as Stealth IT or Client IT, are
Information technology (IT) systems
built and used within organizations without explicit organizational approval, for example, systems specified and deployed by departments
other than the IT department.
Many people consider shadow IT an important source of innovation,
and such systems may become prototypes for future approved
IT solutions. On the other hand, shadow IT solutions are not often in line with organizational requirements for control, documentation,
security, reliability, etc.
Typically shadow IT is not a source on innovation -- typically this is a reaction on excessive centralization and bureaucratization of IT, endemic for large corporations. It created
hidden conflict between IT organization and the rest of corporation, conflict exposure of which is not considered to be "politically correct",
and which typically is swiped under the carpet. Central IT with time tend to became detaches from interests or the
organization and engaged in data hoarding, self-promotion and favor trading, including reckless outsourcing (the way to increase
bonuses for top level brass at the expense of everybody else).
So this is looks to me like shadow economics in the USSR where overcentralization essentially paralyzed local activity, other
then huge centrally assigned government projects. One of clear analogies is Byzantine system of ordering of new hardware that
many corporations now adopt. In some case Soviet system looks definitely superior to those corporate schemes, which entail almost
complete paralysis of any local innovation and especially negatively affect corporate research.
Proliferation of DevOPs hoopla is one typical way to swipe under the carpet negative problems caused
by excessive outsourcing and centralization. In a way "DevOps is an opium for the IT people" ;-)
Proliferation of DevOPs hoopla is one typical way to swipe under the carpet problems caused
by excessive outsourcing and centralization. In a way "DevOps is an opium for the IT people" ;-)
Introduction of applications that are viewed by users as 'second rate" in comparison with previous version also create stimulus
for Shadow IT. One example is Office 365, which provides questionable benefits in comparison with previous versions of Microsoft
Office, especially for power users. And the switch is connected mainly with Microsoft's desire to "milk the cow" via subscription model.
Many power users do not see
value to switch and readapt to the "new brave world" of cloud applications, which are often slower. As well as relearn things
that does not improve their productivity, or even effect it negatively. Usage of abandonware, applications another typical
"Shadow IT" domain as many enterprise users own licenses to previous version of now discontinued applications. One example
here is Microsoft Frontpage. Recently the rise of Shadow IT became somewhat connected with the resistance to DevOps hoopla, especially
among system administrators which are badly affected. The other is installation of Windows 7 in VM on Windows 10 desktops as
power user usually have registration codes and disks to make this happen.
It is also can be used by "rogue" top brass for "double books" kind of schemes like in Hillary Clinton case (aka
Emailgate). While Wikipedia
article is trying to whitewash Hillary, it does provide some relevant facts that attest the amazing, really staggering level of arrogance and incompetence involved:
At the time of Senate confirmation hearings on Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State, the
domain names clintonemail.com, wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com
were registered to Eric Hoteham,[20]
with the home of Clinton and her husband in Chappaqua, New York, as the contact address.[21][22]
The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton (who never had a state.gov email account) used to send and receive
email, and which was purchased and installed in the Clintons' home for
her 2008 presidential campaign.[23]
The email server was located in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York, from January 2009 until 2013, when it was sent to a
data center in New Jersey before being handed over to
Platte River Networks, a Denver-based
information technology firm that
Clinton hired to manage her email system.[24][25][26][27][28]
The server itself runs a Microsoft
Exchange 2010[29][30]
server with access to emails over the internet being delivered by
Outlook Web App. The web
page is secured with a TLS certificate to
allow information to be transmitted securely when using the website. However, for the first two months of its use - January 2009
through March 29, 2009 - the web page was reportedly not secured with a TLS certificate, meaning that information transmitted using
the service was unencrypted and may have been liable to interception.[19]
In the latter case the key goal was to avoid accountability and disclosure of emails and other documents connected with Clinton
Foundation dealings. This is typical if
some executive have shadow business. In large corporate environment the discovery of such a scheme typically lead to immediate
termination. This discipline is strictly enforced because such cases can cause huge PR and financial damage to the corporation.
Annual security training which includes security of email often is an annual obligatory course (for example Harvard provides such
course for large corporations) and include viewing and listening specially prepared presentation and passing more or less
difficult quiz. such annual training serves as an important deterrent for engaging in reckless "a la Hillary" schemes.
In the past few years, Shadow IT gone from being considered a minor problem, to being considered a huge security risk. Still in over-centralized
(and/or outsourced ) IT organizations it is to a certain extent unavoidable, as people in such an organization are essentially unable
to solve user problems "naturally". That's why they started to resort to methods that often lie outside traditional
enterprise IT and some of them undermine enterprise security.
The classic case is too tight control of Internet access. For example attempt to decode encrypted communications, which make
browsing of the WEB almost unusable. People switch to use of cell phone and totally bypass corporate infrastructure.
The simplest case is
the abuse of webmail such as Gmail. Such a desire to bypass corporate email typically arise when corporate email does now
work well -- for example you can't sent a big attachment. Similarly, if you can't download the necessary files for
your business partners, Microsoft Drive or Google drive can used to "solve" this problem. Or you might use your Hotmail or
Gmail account to send attachment to say Dell or HP. Few people are stupid enough to use Facebook.
Another typical example is use of social sites for business purposes (for exchanging some photos or documents). Similar abuse is
possible with Google drive and ismilar storage areas provided by major corporations such as Microsoft and Google.
Cloud servers open really infinite possibilities for shadow infrastructure as they are not tightly controlled by traditional IT,
which often does no understand cloud well, So they can compete with university graduates who do not actually know other
infrastructure and for whom setting cloud server in Ubuntu is natural way of doing things.
At the same time IT management is unwilling to acknowledge that the strategy to save costs via over-centralization mixed with outsourcing
is dead-ended and quickly reaches the stage of unintended consequences, or as it often called "centralization blowback".
IT management often is unwilling to acknowledge that the strategy to save costs via over-centralization mixed with outsourcing
is dead-ended and quickly reaches the stage of unintended consequences or as it often called "centralization blowback".
So, as we mentioned above, shadow IT naturally develops as a reaction to excessive bureaucratization of central IT typical for large
corporations. As well as the loss of flexibility of IT (fossilization) resulting in the compete, utter inability of IT to serve user
needs. When a simple helpdesk ticket travels to central helpdesk and than is lingering somewhere for two days and then is assigned to
clueless outsourcer, the user community quickly adapt, creates its own experts (out of the most knowledgeable users who run complex
home networks, are involved with home automation or robotics) and "private" knowledge centers and start ignoring official IT functions
and services. This the reality of outsourcing and over centralization and is backside of all this
DevOps hoopla. Which actually raises the level of complexity of environment, which is
already way too complex.
When corporate desktop became unmanageable mess of badly chosen applications amplified by redundant or duplicating each other
functions security software, users try to "escape" this environment into more predictable, better for them. For most users this is
connected with usage of virtual machines. This is especially typical for sysadmins who known Linux well. In this case moving
to Linux became that way to escape "the idiotism of typical corporate desktop environment". It does not completely avoids
useless fighting with helpdesk about why you can't connect to DRAC or why Teraterm suddenly stopped working, but it helps.
If the organization provides users access to Azure of Amazon cloud this is another avenue of "escapism movement". In many
case this allow to relax or even completely avoid problems with corporate proxy which often throws a monkey wrench in installation
of complex software, especially for researchers.
Many corporations have completely dysfunctional IT now due to cuts in manpower and outsourcing. For example, if helpdesk tickets
are travelling two or more days in a bureaucratic maze before assigning to a specialist who can resolve them (and often to the wrong specialist, which extends the agony), laptops after patching exhibit "strange" behaviour and/or some applications change behaviour, or
even stop working after patching.
Often corporate laptop boots so long that it became so annoying that people do not shut it down
at the end of the day creating windows of opportunity to various hacks. Or bluetooth stops working and nobody care why.
In dysfunctional IT organization an important server after a minor malfunction can stay down for a week or even a month, and nobody cares.
Sounds familiar? It is ;-).
Another typical example of "shadow IT" are private backups and general "abuse" of USB drives, as a reaction
to switching to backups over WAN, or outsourcing this operation. They also might be result of some high level brass attempt to hide
nefarious activities.
Now we know for sure that emails
on her private, recklessly created email server were intercepted by a foreign power. And it was not Russia.
Typical enterprise backup tools such as HP Data Protector can create a horrible mess: it tend to stop making backup on its own and
personnel often overlook this fact until it's too late. Often users stop trusting central backup after one or two accidents in which
they lost data. With the capacity of modern USB drives (256GB for falsh drives and 3TB for portable USB) any sysadmin can make
"private" backups at least of the OS and critical files to avoid downtime. But road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Even if this is done on site such a move represents some security risk. If backup stored offsite in the cloud -- a huge security risk.
Some example of private backups are images on OS done using a FIT (small factor) flash drive to keep local
copy of OS and key files. Those can be viewed as kind of "self-preservation" strategy that can help to avoid frantic efforts to restore
damaged servers after power loss (typically such "external" events provoke additional failures and if at this point RAID5 array has
one bad drive and the second failed your data are in danger). Linux LVM is another frequent point failure.
Generally you need to have a copy of of /etc/ on the first login during the particular day. Especially important is a
copy of /etc/lvm/backup/volume_name which contain vital information for recovery of mangled LVM partitions.
That's why it is prudent to backup root partition at least
weekly and backup /etc directory on the first login during particular day. You can write such data on a flash card of the
server or blade (vFlash in Dell) which provide this operation a patina of legitimacy, or a
FIT form factor flash drive
permanently installed in one of USB ports.
The same FIT flash drive can contain a tar ball
of major filesystems as provided by Relax-and-Recover. With
the current prices there is no excuse not to use FIT drive as a recovery medium. As of October 2019 256GB SanDisk FIT drive costs around $36. Samsung
also sell FIT form factor USB
flash drives.
In large enterprise environment
you can use a dedicated server for such "partial" backups and bare metal recovery ISO
files. You should do it yourself, as central backup
in large, typically highly bureaucratized corporation is often unreliable. In other words you do need to practice "Shadow
IT".
Centralized backup often it is performed by the other department
(operators on night shift)
and restore is delegated to operators too, who can screw-up already damaged system further instead of helping
to recover it just due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the environment. Then you will
need to deal with two problems :-(.
"First and foremost, not too much zeal [with outsourcing]" ;-)
Taleyrand
The term "blowback" is richer than the term of "unintended consequences" and includes the elements of hidden revolt,
or at least active and growing resistance to the policies of central IT.
(The Full Wiki) :
Blowback is the espionage term for the violent,
unintended consequences of a
covert operation that are suffered by the civil population
of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as "random" acts of political
violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public-in whose name the
intelligence agency acted-are ignorant of the effected
secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them. Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant,
violent consequences - reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence
agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation.
Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous
with consequence-the attacked victims' revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible
politico-military leaders are invulnerable.
Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage
denoting the unintended, harmful consequences-to friendly populations and military forces-when a given weapon is carelessly used.
Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries
who sell drugs to their sponsor's civil populace; and banana
republicjuntas who kill American reporters.
This is the situation when, unfortunately, users start implicitly sending central IT to hell. So "Shadow IT" has its place
in the modern datacenter and large corporations. But as everything it is important to remember Talleyrand advice to young diplomats
"first and foremost, not too much zeal" ;-). Even if you forces to resort to shadow It by circumstances, it is important not to overstep
boundaries.
RSA 2012 paper on the subject, although written from a position of a security company interested in additional business, and as such
highly suspect, still contain interesting observations. I would recommend to read it first. Generally we can distinguish several forms of Shadow IT and new form arise along with new technologies (two recent additions
are use of Azure and Amazon cloud for Shadow IT activities)
Use of unapproved and/or unsupported by central IT applications. This is probably the most widespread form. That
includes first of all open source applications, editors such as SlickEdit, packages like Cygwin, terminal emulators like Teraterm,
additional scripting languages, gnu toolchain, etc.
Running software from USB drives. There is a whole class of software which is able to run from USB using
only user-level privileges. For example, WinSCP, MobaTerm and Total Commander.
Bringing to the corporation distributives or RPMs downloaded at home as it is impossible to installed software without them
and corporate proxy blocks sites from which they can be downloaded.
Subverting corporate controls via VM (see below)
Running older versions of software using existing corporate licensed or licenses from corporate acquisitions of smaller rivals
as newer version are inferior or too slow due to WAN connectivity involved (for example Office 365 vs Office 2007 or even
Office 2003).
Installing virtual machine (or just VMware player, which often is a corporate approved application) on the standard desktop.
And running additional OS on it (typically Linux) without bizarre restrictions introduced by central IT.
Use of decommissioned, but not discarded laptops, desktops and cellphones to host local applications. You might
be surprised how much you can do using old cellphones -- you can host pretty complex applications for a sizable group on
it. And old laptop can serve as a shadow server for along, long time. Some Dell D620 laptops are still use in corporations
for this purpose even today. There is volumes of "undeground" literature about hwoto use IPv6 in IPv4 networks to avoid
detection (you can do anything on a local segment with IPv6). Access to internet from provate cellphones is now another "window
into the world" that is widely exploited. In a sense excessive zeal by corpoate security departments, now not only
backfire, user taken countermeasures often make the security much lower.
Deliberate duplication of functions.
When official helpdesk became useless, people in regional offices often try to duplicate support contracts with vendors, or
consulting organization, masking them in their budgets. Small repairs (like harddrives) are bought on corporate
credit card, as wait time for cercvice cfrom outsourced corporate IT is completely unacceptable.
When official backup solutions became fossilized and unreliable (for example performed over the WAN with the spill out into
working hours) sysadmins and power users create their own backup systems
When tech support from "official" channel is a joke (often this the case with outsourcers) users buy additional/duplicating
support from vendors bypassing central IT or use their contacts with universities to hire some "bright guys" as
consultants, hiding or distorting the real nature of their work.
Proliferation of staff (typically at remote sites, not in headquarters) that does not belong to formal IT, but is engaged
in pure IT functions, sometimes full-time. This is especially typical for engineering departments and research labs,
were there is a lot technical expertise on the floor. Sometimes those specialists later are "discovered" and incorporated into "official
IT".
Unapproved Web services from third party providers that replace or complement similar applications dictated by central IT.
For example, partial switch to use of Gmail instead of using Notus Notes mail which is centralized on other continent and as
result is slow as hell. When email to the user sitting the next cubicle takes two-three minutes to deliver, people start thinking
about alternatives. And not always constructively, as often it is easier to tell such a user information verbally, then to type and
send email :-). Such practices of course worry security department and is bad for corporation as whole. But often it falls under radar.
And even if threatening letters to "all users" are sent, they have unintended consequences. People really stop using Gmail and hotmail
for sending letters to colleagues. But they often switch to Facebook which is much less secure then Gmail, but is politically correct,
because social platforms are now in fashion and the last month or year vice president responsible for IT (often accountant by trainings,
who understand in IT only elements of Excel) wrote a letter recommending employees to create a page on Facebook (big mistake,
but he might understand this only a couple of years later :-). Internal company blogs also can often be used a email substitution.
Unapproved support contracts that duplicate support which should be provided by central IT.
Unapproved hardware that undermines central IT monopoly. For example
Using private Microsoft Surface pro tablets as a compliment to centrally assigned (aka "standard") and sluggish Dell
or HP laptops
with some excessive scanning and restriction of functions.
Proliferation of personal devices with 4G connectivity including, but not limited to ultrabooks, tablets (especially Microsoft
Surface Pro with 4G modem), smartbooks with 4G connectivity, Chromebooks, large smartphones. All of them allow to browse Web outside control
or knowledge of central IT.
User owed USB drives, cards, and other media (sometimes pretty sophisticated).
"Parallel networks" running on some non-routable IP space, or via broght from home wireless router bypassing
corporate proxy and access policies.
Shadow virtual or real server running Linux and email or LAMP stack with some SaaS software (for example blogs or wiki).
Modern tower desktop is a pretty capable servers that can serve regional office needs quite well, if corporate policy dictates that
those function are centralized at the site across Atlantic. If there are capable people on a remote site ;-).
Attempts to create alternative networking infrastructure either in a form netbooks with non-approved WAN cards (breaking firewall)
or Linksys routers brought from home and running some devices on additional private network (typically using 196.168.x.x IP range,
which is non-routable and is seldom used in corporate environment). These cases are less common as they require networking
qualification which is rare outside IT.
According to Wikipedia:
A 2012 French survey
of 129 IT managers revealed some examples of shadow IT :
Excel macro 19%
software 17%
cloud solutions 16%
ERP 12%
BI systems 9%
Websites 8%
hardware 6%
VoIP 5%
shadow IT support 5%
shadow IT project 3%
BYOD 3%
Another form of shadow IT comes by way of OAuth connected applications, where a user authorizes access to a third-party application
via a sanctioned application. For example, the user can use their Facebook credentials to log into Spotify, or another 3rd party
application via their corporate cloud app (Google G Suite or Microsoft Office 365). With this access, the 3rd party app may have
excessive access to the sanctioned app, thereby introducing up unintended risk.
All-in-all rise of "Shadow IT" signify both loss of control and loss of influence that IT organizations experienced during the last
decade. It is the most pronounced when due to over-centralization and outsourcing the quality of service became unacceptably low (despite
Potemkin villages of official reporting with their excellent and completely fake "incident resolution time" metrics)
All-in-all rise of "Shadow IT" signify both loss of control and loss of influence that IT organizations experienced during
the last decade. It is the most pronounced when due to over-centralization and outsourcing the quality of service became unacceptably
low (despite Potemkin villages of official reporting with their excellent and completely fake "incident resolution time" metrics)
Excessive outsourcing, red tape in servicing user requests, lack of qualification if central IT (especially noticeable on middle
management level) and severe lag in deploying modern Web-based solutions. Like in the USSR everything was decided in Moscow and all
money first went to Moscow and then were distributed top down, over-centralized IT headquarters concentrate tremendous information flows
that they are unable to deal with. We already mentions pretty stupid idea of "global helpdesk" which quickly deteriorate into "global
absence of helpdesk". Often it is exacerbated by outsourced helpdesk analysts which do not understand complex corporate context and
are just low paid monkey who look into database of precooked solution. in such an environment end users feel frustration or even
a state of disaster, when user can't get solution for trivial problems for a weeks and the response for a trivial helpdesk ticket can
take three days (I am not joking here).
There are several major symptom of this loss of flexibility and alienation from user needs:
Draconian "privilege deprivation" on corporate desktops and laptops. Often this is related to removal of administrative
privileges granted to the user (we are talking only about power users here; corporate lemmings is quite another category).
Often this is done in the name of fighting virus epidemics, while other more reasonable measures are not deployed. This is
an open invitation for users to have their own private laptop for some processing that was made too difficult by central IT.
Restrictions that convert PC into a dumb terminal and interfering with productivity usually provoke a strong (and inventive) counter
reaction. At this point often laptop or netbook is brought from home to have work done. Sometimes this affect part of
IT personal (for example inability to use VM to have linux as alternative to Windows OS raffle feathers of some Unix administrators)
creating disgruntled employees on regional sites and stimulating creation of quite inventive shadow IT solutions explicitly design
to defeat efforts of central IT. This is so called "site revolt" which in sycophantic IT environment of large corporation is
never open, and is swiped under the carpet. Although end users of influential sites and their manager can be much less
diplomatic and direct at times ;-)
Broken patch process and overzealous use of Active directory. While "IT sadists" previously naturally gravitated toward
sysadmin position and security, Active directory provides a new and very powerful way to inflict pain on unsuspecting users ;-).
It goes without saying that its power is abused and petty and sometimes humiliating restrictions provide strong backlash.
Combination of broken patch process and unqualified IT support is another interesting factor in rejection of corporate desktop
by power users. Dual boot if it is allowed became actively used. Virtual machines, if they are allowed, become the mean of
escape from clutches on centralized It, instead of a regular tool.
Deployment of inefficient, slow, or half-baked systems (often from IBM ;-) that are worse then their predecessors in the name
of unification and centralization. Sometimes the impression is with the loss of qualification of IT management vendors take
IT hostage and push useless or harmful products with impunity. This is modern variant of Anderson "invisible dress" tale. And
it usually takes several years of constant frustration and swiping problems under the carpet for somebody to cry "The king is naked".
Only then something is done of alleviate the situation. This situation if often typical after corporate takeoffs, when a large fossilized
company acquire more nimble competitor and push through the throat fossilized, inadequate IT systems (especially painful is helpdesk
change). Users who used to see better days and better system are frustrated and resort to guerilla tactic (while they still have
jobs, which often in not very long; this is the nature of acquisitions).
Reliance of fashion that dramatically raise the costs and lessen flexibility. Especially if this is a stupid "campaign"
in best over-centralized corporate IT style that completely lost touch with reality: "all our servers should use SAN", "we move everything
to VMware", "we buy blades only from Cisco" (with their exorbitant prices ;-), "we deploy DevOps", etc;
Inability to analyze technological and financial consequences of (often stupid, and assigned via nepotism channels) middle
and incompetent higher management initiatives.
Like with any counterculture there are risks in using Shadow IT. If you overstep your boundaries you can lose your job. But if everybody
is suffering from the same problem attempts to find a solution outside normal IT channel usually are not punished severely and often
are pursue with implicit support of local management. Typically such cases are just swiped under the rag. Often solution initiated
as part of "Shadow IT' later find its way into mainstream. In this sense it serves as internal innovation incubator.
Countermeasures to the removal of administrative privileges on laptops
Reagan citing old Russian proverb "Trust but verify" was right not only about international relations, but also about best
policy for the user laptops. "Trust but verify" complianceis a better approach than "scan and block".
for advanced users and system administrators removal of administrative privileges is essentially declaration from the central IT
that the user lost the trust. And it rises the classic question "Who are the judges ?" Why often incompetent (in comparison with staff
of engineering and research departments often having Ph.Ds among members) and detached from reality central IT staff should impose without
consultation and consent from business departments measures that undermines productivity in those departments? After all central IT
is a somewhat parasitic organization that spends money earned by business units. Why business units can't be consulted what that is
needed and treated like children, who are just told what to do and what don't?
That's why users without administrator privileges on his/her laptops often rebel. Sometimes there is no direct removal, but severe
restrictions are imposed via Active Directory ("AD fascism"). Restrictions that make doing useful work for certain tasks within the
framework imposed by organization next to impossible. Again, this typically is not a problem in accounting department (which actually
can squeeze overzealous IT jerks pretty easily ;-), but in research units and labs who have creative people able to smash those
restrictions, and who understand some part of IT much better then central IT (especially people involved with such things like genome
sequencing, molecular modeling, etc where community is generally extremely computer literate.)
At this point it is the central IT which is a loser as people are much more creative and often invent elegant tricks to bypass restrictions
imposed by IT infrastructure and create more usable alternative. In other words shadow IT exists because the business unit(s) perceive
that IT is not meeting their needs and using official tools is either unsuitably cumbersome and slow or is detrimental to the success
of business.
The key performance indicator for IT is availability. But users satisfaction is equally important and disgruntled users represent
much bigger danger to IT infrastructure. The danger that stupid and/or overzealous members of security group that invert those measure
fail to understand... In other words instead of improving security such measures are undermining it.
Countermeasures by "deprived" members
Let's discuss countermeasures that "deprived" members of corporate units (and that typically includes some It members, for example
Unix administrators) can use to restore status quo. There are several avenue for undermining this decision.
Pressure on "power hungry". Typically such measures are introduced during new hardware deployment. As environment is not
perfect especially during new laptop deployment period you can always claim that existing arrangement does not allow you to performs
some important part of your job. Logging a couple of tickets and putting a negative evaluation for unresolved ticket can help
to speed the sobering of "drunk with power" members of IT team, but this is a razor sharp weapon and should be used with extreme
caution and only as a reaction to a real screw-ups. You just no longer need to swipe them under the floor. And you need to find
and cultivate allies. There is strength in numbers.
Switch to alternative hardware.
Private tablets, Ultrabooks or Macbooks. They are not the expensive and can be used in additional to company granted
laptop or in tandem with company granted laptop. Typically company policy is fuzzy about ultrabooks and, especially, tablets that
user owns. Here Microsoft Surface Pro can be very handy in bypassing the "IT standards". You probably need to buy your own 4G
internet access card and that can eliminate restrictions imposed by company proxy. This clearly run contrary to company policy
on sharing corporate data and you can be fired. In extreme cases this just a reckless stupidity (Hillary Clinton bathroom
server is good example here). In any case freedom has its price :-).
Using some old corporate laptop or desktop (aka "previous generation" laptops, desktops) connected along with "standard"
laptop via Linksys (on which you can emulate any MAC address, including one of you laptop) or similar routers with the address
translation. Often you can justify your desire to keep older laptop quite easily. And "out of site is out of mind" --
central IT does not care about them anymore so as long as you can keep your mouth shut. This way you can avoid the most ridiculous
restriction imposed by the "new regime" for the most difficult "transitional" period. For example, this is a temporary solution
for a typical for Linux sysadmins problem when on a new laptop you can't connect to DRAC or ILO because Java is not compatible.
The danger here is the lack of security, because you can't provide adequate level of security on such things unless you install
linux on them. For this solution you should be have real understand of corporate networking or have a friend who does. Of
course nmap and similar tools will discover it presence on the corporate network, but usually this is pretty safe
method that for a limited time gives you the possibility to adapt or fight some restriction that paralyze your work. You
probably need to use additional non-routable address space for those two connections. For example if organization is using 10
network you can use 192.168 network on the segment that Linksys provides. Used Linksys gateway is approximately $10 on eBay so
this is not a big expense.
Some unused server or virtual machine can be used as you "surrogate desktop". Old, decommissioned hardware often is
not discarded immediately and if you are Linux/Unix administrator you have some power to prolong their life. Using this
as an alternative desktop is a good avoidance maneuver. Windows server can serve as a reasonable alternative to your desktop and
most application install and run perfectly well of it. Linux is mainly suitable for those who have previous Unix experience.
If you in IT you have multiple opportunities in this area. In the classic case of broken connection to DRAC/ILO you first
connect to this server and then from it to DRAC or ILO. As this server is outside the control of desktop specialists, you are
much less restricted in what you can do with it and as an administrator you have administrative privileges.
Switch to alternative OSes. Current laptops are so over specified that they can curry multiple OSes. Of
couse UEFI thows monkey wrench in direct use, but sophisticated people heroes always chose a detour to arrive to designation ;-)
Windows 10 allows Linux VM running (Ubuntu or Suse), so with some skills in bypassing IT bureaucracy this is a feasible way
of switching, especially attractive for system administrators (one nice wait is to wait for an emergency in which IT incompetence
is involved and then ask for a favor ;-)
Dual boot. This is the simplest possibility, if you can do without company specific services (for example use you Blackberry
for email). Both Linux and some older version of Windows can be installed. Using virtual machine is another. Guerilla installation
of Windows 2003 server are also pretty nice countermeasure. Often you can create some fancy justification for such a "private"
server and by definition is not controlled by the same group as desktop. So you get more degrees of freedom.
Use a virtual machine. If company allow using VM players you externally are given a free pass for this solution. Microsoft
also provides the ability to install VM with Windows 7. You just need to justify this which is not that difficult as many applications
after transition has difficulties.
Using "in the cloud" servers or services. Using alternative email is very common among company employees as using official
email for private messages is one of the stupidest thing that you can do in the corporate environment.
Those points are of course raw and incomplete. But stupidity of official policy is the gasoline that fuels "shadow IT renaissance"
and inventions of those who are affected. Creatively bypassing of those restrictions is a banner of real IT professional. Pleas note
that this often puts company data on far less protected then a regular corporate PC environment. Excessive zeal in security often backfire
in a very interesting ways.
In many instances, corporate IT policies and standardization efforts are simply stupid in the very exact meaning of this word. They
are often created by a clueless bureaucrat that does not understand (and don't want to) understand the situation "in the trenches".
That means that even parts of official IT staff can be engaged in "shadow IT" activities.
Creating shadow Web services
Deployment of unreliable, slow, resource hungry systems like Lotus Notes, Lotus Sametime, Documentum and, especially, SAP/R3 (which
often has very slow response that defeats the purpose and benefits of the centralization) also stimulate search for alternatives.
Like any counterculture creating your own Web services entails certain risks including security risks, but it would be simplistic
just to condemn it like many writers do. For example
The existence of Shadow IT within an organization is symptomatic of a lack of alignment between business units and IT and, possibly,
even senior management and IT. Shadow IT is, at best, a shortsighted strategy that may work well for a given business unit, but be
detrimental for the organization overall.
One precondition for creation of shadow Web services is the ability to run virtual machine on your corporate laptop or desktop. Or
on remote sites, availability of some local Linux expertise
Often Shadow IT is associated with Unix culture and open source software. Lpsp; the service is not visible outside the particular
site and it represents much lesser security risks.
Any modern desktop is extremely capable and powerful server in disguise, often superior to the "real" server from HP or Dell that
is five years old. If it allow "dual boot" (rarely true) or installing VMs on (often true) you already has all the necessary infrastructure.
Also on remote sites there is always possibility to get "departmental" desktop and use it as departmental server. In case central
IT goes nuts this is one path that might be considered. Using Internet ISPs and places like Amazon cloud is another possibility, but
here the problem is that your data migrates outside of IT infrastructure. This is a definite security risk and this way you might violate
some corporate policy.
Creation of shadow IT file servers
If using corporate file servers is too painful, creation of a Ubuntu server on unused laptop or workstation can fill the void. A simple linux box with Samba is a decent and quick
solution.
Creating of alternative email infrastructure
To a certain extent alternative email infrastructure existed as long as Web connectivity exist. Hotmail, Gmail and other Web-based
mail applications automatically mean alternative email infrastructure. That only question if how widely it is used (it definitely should
be used for all private emails). The fact that it is impossible to synchronize with corporate Blackberry or other smart phone works
against shadow email infrastructure, but many people have their own smart phones those days in additional to a corporate one.
here you are esepally stepping into Hillary Clinton territory. This is a dangerous path if such server communicated with the ourside
world. For strictly internal mail (for example specialized for monitoring messages) it might be OK.
Conclusions
Shadow IT is a reaction of users to the problem of fossilization and loss of efficiently and competence of over centralized IT organizations.
As such it is just a symptom of the disease. In perverted world of corporate IT, such methods often serve to increase productivity (or
partially restore it from complete paralysis caused by some ill though "reorganization" of IT functions) and as such has the right for
existence.
It is naive to think that an official edict can stop shadow IT from emerging in a typical large, bureaucratized IT organization with
its multiple sites, multiple datacenters and multiple jerks, authoritarians ("kiss up, kick down" type), and psychopaths (especially
dangerous are female psychopaths) at the top and middle levels of IT management.
Budgets cuts also stimulate looking for alternatives for officially supported IT products but not to the extent that bureaucratization
and stagnation of "official" IT organizations.
Shadow IT has been presented as a new threat to IT departments because of the cloud. Not
true -- the cloud has simply made it easier for non-IT personnel to acquire and create their
own solutions without waiting for IT's permission. Moreover, the cloud has made this means of
technical problem-solving more visible, bringing shadow IT into the light. In fact, "shadow IT"
is more of a legacy pejorative for what should better be labeled "DIY IT." After all, shadow IT
has always been about people solving their own problems with technology.
Here we take a look at how your organization can best go about leveraging the upside of DIY
IT.
What sends non-IT problem-solvers into the shadows
The IT department is simply too busy, overworked, understaffed, underutilized, and sometimes
even too disinterested to take on every marketing Web application idea or mobile app initiative
for field work that comes its way. There are too many strategic initiatives, mission-critical
systems, and standards committee meetings, so folks outside IT are often left with little
recourse but to invent their own solutions using whatever technical means and expertise they
have or can find.
How can this be a bad thing?
They are sharing critical, private data with the wrong people somehow.
Their data is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, or out of date.
Their data would be of use to many others, but they don't know it exists.
Their ability to solve their own problems is a threat to IT.
Because shadow IT practitioners are subject matter experts in their domain, the second
drawback is unlikely. The third is an opportunity lost, but that's not scary enough to sweat.
The first and fourth are the most likely to instill fear -- with good reason. If something goes
wrong with a home-grown shadow IT solution, the IT department will likely be made responsible,
even if you didn't know it existed.
The Forrester Wave™ Endpoint Detection & Response, Q1 2020 Report
Sunburst On-Demand Attack Simulation
On-Demand Attack Simulation
The wrong response to these fears is to try to eradicate shadow IT. Because if you really
want to wipe out shadow IT, you would have to have access to all the network logs, corporate
credit card reports, phone bills, ISP bills, and firewall logs, and it would take some effort
to identify and block all unauthorized traffic in and out of the corporate network. You would
have to rig the network to refuse to connect to unsanctioned devices, as well as block access
to websites and cloud services like Gmail, Dropbox, Salesforce, Google apps, Trello, and so on.
Simply knowing all you would have to block access to would be a job in itself.
Worse, if you clamp down on DIY solutions you become an obstacle, and attempts to solve
departmental problems will submerge even further into the shadows -- but it will never go away.
The business needs underlying DIY IT are too important.
The reality is, if you shift your strategy to embrace DIY solutions the right way, people
would be able to safely solve their own problems without too much IT involvement and IT would
be able to accomplish more for the projects where its expertise and oversight is truly
critical.
Embrace DIY IT
Seek out shadow IT projects and help them, but above all respect the fact that this
problem-solving technique exists. The folks who launch a DIY project are not your enemies; they
are your co-workers, trying to solve their own problems, hampered by limited resources and
understanding. The IT department may not have many more resources to spread around, but you
have an abundance of technical know-how. Sharing that does not deplete it.
You can find the trail of shadow IT by looking at network logs, scanning email traffic and
attachments, and so forth. You must be willing to support these activities, even if you do
not like them . Whether or not you like them, they exist, and they likely have good reasons
for existing. It doesn't matter if they were not done with your permission or to your
specifications. Assume that they are necessary and help them do it right.
See how SecureX turns security from a blocker into an enabler.
Take the lead -- and
lead
IT departments have the expertise to help others select the right technical solution for
their needs. I'm not talking about RFPs, vendor/product evaluation meetings, software selection
committees -- those are typically time-wasting, ivory-tower circuses that satisfy no one. I'm
talking about helping colleagues figure out what it is they truly want and teaching them how to
evaluate and select a solution that works for them -- and is compliant with a small set of
minimal, relevant standards and policies.
That expertise could be of enormous benefit to the rest of the company, if only it was
shared. An approachable IT department that places a priority on helping people solve their own
problems -- instead of expending enormous effort trying to prevent largely unlikely, possibly
even imaginary problems -- is what you should be striving for.
Think of it as being helpful without being intrusive. Sharing your expertise and taking the
lead in helping non-IT departments help themselves not only shows consideration for your
colleagues' needs, but it also helps solve real problems for real people -- while keeping the
IT department informed about the technology choices made throughout the organization. Moreover,
it sets up the IT department for success instead of surprises when the inevitable integration
and data migration requests appear.
Plus, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than reinventing the wheel unnecessarily.
Create
policies everyone can live with
IT is responsible for critical policies concerning the use of devices, networks, access to
information, and so on. It is imperative that IT have in place a sane set of policies to
safeguard the company from loss, liability, leakage, incomplete/inaccurate data, and security
threats both internal and external. But everyone else has to live with these policies, too. If
they are too onerous or convoluted or byzantine, they will be ignored.
Therefore, create policies that respect everyone's concerns and needs, not IT's alone.
Here's the central question to ask yourself: Are you protecting the company or merely the
status quo?
Security is a legitimate concern, of course, but most SaaS vendors understand security at
least as well as you do, if not better. Being involved in the DIY procurement process (without
being a bottleneck or a dictator) lets you ensure that minimal security criteria are met.
Data integrity is likewise a legitimate concern, but control of company data is largely an
illusion. You can make data available or not, but you cannot control how it is used once
accessed. Train and trust your people, and verify their activities. You should not and cannot
make all decisions for them in advance.
Regulatory compliance, auditing, traceability, and so on are legitimate concerns, but
they do not trump the rights of workers to solve their own problems. All major companies
in similar fields are subject to the same regulations as your company. How you choose to comply
with those regulations is up to you. The way you've always done it is not the only way, and
it's probably not even the best way. Here, investigating what the major players in your field
do, especially if they are more modern, efficient, and "cloudy" than you, is a great start.
The simplest way to manage compliance is to isolate the affected software from the rest of
the system, since compliance is more about auditing and accountability than proscriptive
processes. The major movers and shakers in the Internet space are all over new technologies,
techniques, employee empowerment, and streamlining initiatives. Join them, or eat their
dust.
Champion DIY IT
Once you have a sensible set of policies in place, it's high time to shine a light on shadow
IT -- a celebratory spotlight, that is.
By championing DIY IT projects, you send a clear message that co-workers have no need to
hide how they go about solving their problems. Make your intentions friendly and clear up
front: that you are intent on improving business operations, recognizing and rewarding
innovators and risk-takers, finding and helping those who need assistance, and promoting good
practices for DIY IT. A short memo/email announcing this from a trusted, well-regarded
executive is highly recommended.
Here are a few other ideas in helping you embrace DIY IT:
Establish and publicize "office hours" for free consultations to help guide people toward
better, technically informed choices. Offer advice, publish research, make recommendations,
and help any way you can.
Offer platform services to make it easier for co-workers to get the cloud resources they
need while providing known, safe environments for them to use.
Ask people what software or systems they're using -- a simple survey or email can reveal
a lot. Offer a checklist of software you think people might or should be using with a few
blanks for services not listed to get the conversations started. Encourage people to track
what they really use for a day or a week. Let them know you are looking for existing
solutions to enhance and support, not searching for "contraband."
Examine your internal server/email traffic. Are there patterns or spikes of large
documents or long-running connections? Investigate the source of these, and help them
optimize. For example, if design engineers routinely email each other gigantic design
documents every Wednesday, provide them with a secure shared drive to use instead. Follow
the bandwidth to get to the source -- and help them work better.
Examine your support load for patterns, such as an uptick in calls for new software or
unsupported/unrecognized software, or a severe downturn in calls for old software. This may
indicate that an older, problematic system has been surreptitiously replaced.
Publicize and praise prior DIY IT projects, recognize and reward their creators, and
share their results and techniques with other departments. To spread successful practices,
provide proof of your good intentions and publicize the benefits of reasonable IT efforts
outside the IT department. Make it known, with strong executive support, that you want these
projects to succeed and you want the fruits of these labors to be recognized, applauded, and
shared for the betterment of the company.
Ask everyone, systematically, what they've done and/or need help with. Don't ask, "Are
you doing shady shadow IT things?" The answer will be no, of course not. Instead ask, "How
can we help you eliminate or simplify repetitive, mind-numbing activities?"
If possible, provide a roving high-caliber but small team of IT and devops specialists to
make "house calls" to help people get set up, fix problems, and improve DIY IT projects. This
will help the projects succeed while remaining compliant with balanced IT policies. Plus,
being visibly proactive and helpful is good for public relations.
When warranted, embed a small IT team within a business unit to help them solve their
larger problems, and share that learning with the rest of the company.
DIY IT can be a great benefit to your organization by relieving the load on the IT
department and enabling more people to tap technical tools to be more productive in their work
-- a win for everyone. But it can't happen without sane and balanced policies, active support
from IT, and a companywide awareness that this sort of innovation and initiative is valued.
It would be interesting if Durham prove result revealed in October, not matter how
whitewashed they are.
From comments below it is lear that for this particular subset neoliberal elite lost all
legitimacy
Notable quotes:
"... Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop ..."
"... Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims, that the agency took action. ..."
"... Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September 28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about them on October 28th. ..."
"... A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly. ..."
"... These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not Congress . ..."
"... Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them . ..."
"... Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey. ..."
"... The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey, Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public. ..."
"... It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud. ..."
"... The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that database. ..."
"... Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late 2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a month now. ..."
"... Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances? ..."
"... Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. ..."
FBI agent John Robertson, the man who found Hillary Clinton's emails on the laptop of
Anthony Weiner, claims he was advised by bosses to
erase his own computer.
Former FBI Director James Comey, you may recall, announced days before the 2016 presidential
election that he had "learned of the existence" of the emails on Weiner's laptop .
Weiner is the disgraced husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Robertson alleges that the manner in which his higher-ups in the FBI handled the case was
"not ethically or morally right."
His startling claims are made in a book titled, "October Surprise: How the FBI Tried to Save
Itself and Crashed an Election," an excerpt of which has been published by the
Washington Post .
Told to Erase Laptop Containing Investigation of Anthony Weiner Laptop
Robertson alleges that the FBI did nothing for a month after discovering Clinton's emails on
the Anthony Weiner laptop. It was only after he spoke with the U.S. Attorney's office overseeing the case, he claims,
that the agency took action.
"He had told his bosses about the Clinton emails weeks ago," the book contends . "Nothing
had happened."
"Or rather, the only thing that had happened was his boss had instructed Robertson to
erase his computer work station."
This, according to the Post report, was to "ensure there was no classified material on it,"
but also would eliminate any trail of his actions taken during the investigation.
FBI Did Nothing About Hillary Clinton's Emails For Months?
Robertson's assertions match up with a Wall Street Journal
report from 2018 . In that report, text messages between agent Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, lawyer Lisa
Page, indicated the former had been called to discuss the newly discovered emails on September
28th. Those emails wouldn't be revealed until former Director James Comey notified Congress about
them on October 28th.
A book written by James B . Stewart in 2019 asserts that FBI agents had referred to the
discovery of Hillary Clinton's emails as an "oh s***" moment." One agent admitted there were "ten times" as many emails as Comey admitted to publicly.
These allegations make it difficult to say Comey did not lie to the public – if not
Congress .
Robertson's story is being revealed as U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the FBI's
role in the origins of the Russia probe into President Trump's campaign.
Recently released documents from the DOJ show multiple FBI officials had "accidentally
wiped" their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them .
Erasing evidence is a consistent theme for the Obama-era FBI. Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen
subpoenas and depositions of some of these officials, including Comey.
Democrats seem skittish about what Durham is uncovering .
Four House committee chairs last week
asked for an "emergency" review of Attorney General William Barr's handling of Durham's
probe.
"We are concerned by indications that Attorney General Barr might depart from longstanding
DOJ principles," a letter to the IG reads .
They contend Barr may "take public action related to U.S. Attorney Durham's investigation
that could impact the presidential election." Top Democrats have also been threatening to impeach Barr over the investigation.
Kevin Clinesmith, one of the FBI officials involved in gathering evidence in the Russia
investigation, pled
guilty last month to making a false statement. He was accused by the Inspector General of altering an email about former Trump campaign
adviser Carter Page.
President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, said in July that he expects further
indictments and jail time to come out of Durham's probe. Democrats, Comey, and others at the FBI might be a little nervous.
DaiRR , 12 hours ago
DemoRat operatives still pervade the DOJ and to a lesser extent the FBI. Treasonous F's
all of them. Andrew Weissmann is an evil a Rat as any of them and he should be tried,
disbarred and punished for all his lying and despicable crimes while at the DOJ. Of course
MSNBC now loves paying him to be their "legal analyst".
MissCellany , 13 hours ago
What, like with a cloth or something?
RoadKill4Supper , 12 hours ago
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
FBGnome , 3 hours ago
The current election would be at stake.
Unknown User , 14 hours ago
Unless the Swamp does it. Not just a post or a website disappear, people disappear.
Sense , 13 hours ago
The difficulty is not just that Comey and his underlings were obstructing justice to
benefit Clinton, and made a total **** show of it. It is that Sessions was, "to protect the
DOJ"... and Barr, also, clearly, as long he continues to run interference for Comey,
Clinton, et al, is also obstructing justice. Barr has crafted a veneer, it seems... in the
Durham probe... to provide himself plausible deniability. That veneer can remain plausible
only as long as Durham does nothing, and fails to make the files public.
Only if Durham proceeds to use the files, and/or makes the files public, will we find
out if we get prosecutions, or if we get more obstruction under Barr's watch. So, Barr is
carrying a pretty big hammer. It isn't at all clear what he intends to do with that hammer,
or how he intends to use it if he does.
A wild card, perhaps, in the potential for an Senate or House investigation including
Barr's forced participation... in response to which he might be compelled to answer the
unasked question ? Makes it kind of hard to see how "investigating Barr"... poses a threat
to Barr, or Trump... rather than a threat to those investigating him ? The fact they're
even twittering about it suggests more than awareness about the content of that
information... and thus maybe complicity in the effort to cover it up ?
That would explain most of the events of the last four years.
And, as a note, it wasn't "the FBI" that "found the e-mails" (and other files) on the
Weiner laptop.
It was the NYPD. And, that cadre of NYPD officers recognized what was likely to happen
when they did turn it over to the FBI. So they made copies. And, the copies got distributed to the cloud.
It is not possible, I'd think, that Julian Assange didn't get a copy... in case you
wonder why Barr's DOJ is still prosecuting journalism. I doubt they're doing that because
of past publication... rather than in an effort to prevent future publication. Because Assange... in all likelihood... might be the only journalist left in the
world... who will not be coerced into withholding publication.
ElmerTwitch , 12 hours ago
The emails are in the stellarwind database , according to William Binney. So are all the texts that the Mueller crew "erased." IntercoursetheEU is correct - every email and text ever sent is archived in that
database.
The DOJ is indeed protecting Obama, Hillary, Comey, Brennan, Clapper et al.
by claiming "the emails are gone! The texts are gone, too!"
sparky139 , 12 hours ago
What is the stellarwind database
TheReplacement's Replacement , 1 hour ago
Look up NSA.
takeaction , 15 hours ago
As all of us here on ZH understand. NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN... And Trump Team....if you are reading this... THIS IS THE BIGGEST LET DOWN OF YOUR ENTIRE PRESIDENCY...
No_Pretzel_Logic , 14 hours ago
takeaction - I disagree. I think things are happening right now....out of the
country.
TRIALS.....
Where is that slimy, former CIA Director who wouldn't shut-up on national TV from late
2016 to early 2020? Hhmm, not a freaking peep nor have I seen any recent images. How about
the dirtball, prior FBI Dir? His Twitter acct has only had "quotes" posted for about a
month now.
Clapper? Another Trump trasher on constant TV the last few years.....where is he? NOT A
PEEP. Why wouldn't he keep trashing to diminish DJT's election chances?
I'm telling ya, I think they are on a certain Caribbean Island. And my wager is that
Trump is going to toss a wild curveball into this election about the 3rd week of Oct.
Treason convictions announced, is my bet.
maggie2now , 13 hours ago
Brennan was on an MSNBC panel last week pale, sweating, moving around in his seat at the
mere mention of John Durham. Not his usual cocky self that's for sure. HRC was online
flapping her yap with Jennifer Palmieri not too long ago trying to convince the Biden
campaign not to concede the 2020 election under any circumstances. As for Clapper, I don't
know - maybe hiding in a remote location ****ting himself?
MoreFreedom , 12 hours ago
They've shut up because their actions betray them. Publicly they say Trump is a Russian
spy or puppet, while under oath, in a closed room, representing their former government
position and top secret clearance, they've no information to support it. That shows an
anti-Trump political motivation, regarding their prior actions in government. It's also
defrauding the public and government.
YouJustCouldnt , 2 hours ago
Couldn't agree more. How many times have we been here before!
20 years on from 9/11 - From the thousands of experts on the Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth , the latest news is that The National Institute of Standards and Technology
( NIST ) is now more than a week late in issuing its "initial decision" on the pending
"request for correction" to its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building
7. Big Whoop - and just another nothing burger.
Ms No , 15 hours ago
Uhhhh.....yeah.
We have seen this type of thing since JFK. If you hadn't long ago figured this out then
you are either an amateur or a paid internet herd-moving troll/anti-human.
Some of us aren't part of the herd.
(((Anthony Weiner))), just like (((Mossad Epstein honeypot))) and (((lucky Larry
Silverstein))), countless other examples that blow statistical likelihood way beyond
coincidence.
Not rocket science. Its a mob and these are their puppets and fronts. They dont just own
the FBI. They own all branches of your government and all the alphabets.
Enjoying the covid hysteria and run-up to WWIII?
Unknown User , 14 hours ago
If by (((they))) you mean the British who created the OSA and then the CIA. They also
created all the think-tanks, like the CFR. They own the Fed and run the worldwide banking
cartel. The British Crown owns all the countries of the Commonwealth. And they started the
COVID-19 delusion. Yes. Make no mistake. It is (((THEY))).
VWAndy , 15 hours ago
An he didnt go public with it either.
occams razor. they are all corrupt.
Stackers , 15 hours ago
Anyone who thinks that anybody beyond this low level flunky, Kliensmith, is going to get
any kind of prosecution is dreaming. None of these people will face any consequences to
their outright sedition and they know it. Disgusting.
radical-extremist , 15 hours ago
She created a private personal server to purposely circumvent the FOIA system and any
other prying eyes. Her staff was warned not to do it, but they refused to confront her
about it. They were so technically inept that they didn't understand emails are copied on
to servers everywhere...including the pentagon and the state department. And Huma's laptop
that her perv husband used to sext girls.
She maintained and exchanged Top Secret information on a personal/private/unsecured
server in her house. That is a crime punishable with prison time...and yet she skates.
High Vigilante , 15 hours ago
This guy should avoid walking out in dark.
His name was Seth!
Bay of Pigs , 13 hours ago
We have to face reality. If Durham doesn't indict some of these people before the
election, nothing is going to happen. It's the end of the line. Time has run out.
"We bullsh#tted some folks...."
dogfish , 13 hours ago
Trump is a charlatan and a fraud. The only winners with Trump are the Zionist they are
Trumps top priority.
play_arrow
OCnStiggs , 13 hours ago
Good thing NYPD copied the HD on that laptop for just this occurrence. There reportedly
at least two copies in safes in NYC. Criminality of the highest order that eclipses by
100,000,000 whatever happened in Watergate. These FBI people need to hang.
Sparehead , 13 hours ago
Safe in NYC? Like all the evidence of criminal banking activity that was lost in World
Trade Center 7?
4Y_LURKER , 12 hours ago
Oh look! We found passports even though steel and gold was vaporized by jet
fuel!!
There were no prosecution in three years since publication of this article
Notable quotes:
"... New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony
Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary (Clinton)
and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit. ..."
"... NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice
Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now
in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices. ..."
"... Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions
the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said. ..."
"... Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records,
law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however, the
FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell phone
activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge. ..."
"... Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on at
least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media reports
spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island. ..."
"... Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened
with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if the
server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors. ..."
"... Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure
Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner.
..."
"... Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer
system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail
portals. ..."
New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman
Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary
(Clinton) and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit.
NYPD sources said Clinton's "crew" also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and
insiders.
The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and
from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the
FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday.
But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential
candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and
top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
Money laundering
Child exploitation
Sex crimes with minors (children)
Perjury
Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
Obstruction of justice
Other felony crimes
NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice
Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now
in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.
"What's in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach," the NYPD Chief said. "There is not going to be
any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold
my own press conference if it comes to that."
The NYPD Chief said once Comey saw the alarming contents of the emails he was forced to reopen a criminal probe against Clinton.
"People are going to prison," he said.
Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions
the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said.
"If they don't cooperate they are going to see long sentences," a federal law enforcement source said.
NYPD sources said Weiner or Abedin stored all the emails in a massive Microsoft Outlook program on the laptop. The emails
implicate other current and former members of Congress and one high-ranking Democratic Senator as having possibly engaged in criminal
activity too, sources said.
Prosecutors in the office of US Attorney Preet Bharara have issued a subpoena for Weiner's cell phones and travel records,
law enforcement sources confirmed. NYPD said it planned to order the same phone and travel records on Clinton and Abedin, however,
the FBI said it was in the process of requesting the identical records. Law enforcement sources are particularly interested in cell
phone activity and travel to the Bahamas, U.S. Virgin Islands and other locations that sources would not divulge.
The new emails contain travel documents and itineraries indicating Hillary Clinton, President Bill Clinton, Weiner and multiple
members of Congress and other government officials accompanied convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein on his Boeing 727
on multiple occasions to his private island in the US Virgin Islands, sources said. Epstein's island has also been dubbed
Orgy Island or
Sex Slave Island where Epstein allegedly pimps out underage girls and boys to international dignitaries.
Both NYPD and FBI sources confirm based on the new emails they now believe Hillary Clinton traveled as Epstein's guest on
at least six occasions, probably more when all the evidence is combed, sources said. Bill Clinton, it has been confirmed in media
reports spanning recent years, that he too traveled with Epstein over 20 times to the island.
Laptop Also Unveiled More Classified, Top Secret Breaches
According to other uncovered emails, Abedin and Clinton both sent and received thousands of classified and top secret documents
to personal email accounts including Weiner's unsecured campaign web site which is managed by Democratic political consultants in
Washington D.C.
Weiner maintained little known email accounts that the couple shared on the website anthonyweiner.com. Weiner, a former seven-term
Democratic Congressman from New York, primarily used that domain to campaign for Congress and for his failed mayoral bid of New York
City.
At one point, FBI sources said, Abedin and Clinton's classified and top secret State Department documents and emails were stored
in Weiner's email on a server shared with a dog grooming service and a western Canadian bicycle shop.
However, Weiner and Abedin, who is Hillary Clinton's closest personal aide, weren't the only people with access to the Weiner's
email account. Potentially dozens of unknown individuals had access to Abedin's sensitive State Department emails that were stored
in Weiner's email account, FBI sources confirmed.
FEC records show Weiner paid more than $92,000 of congressional campaign funds to Anne Lewis Strategies LLC to manage his email
and web site. According to FBI sources, the D.C.-based political consulting firm has served as the official administrator of the
anthonyweiner.com domain since 2010, the same time Abedin was working at the State Department. This means technically Weiner and
Abedin's emails, including top secret State Department emails, could have been accessed, printed, discussed, leaked, or distributed
by untold numbers of personnel at the Anne Lewis consulting firm because they can control where the website and it emails are pointed,
FBI sources said.
According to FBI sources, the bureau's newly-minted probe into Clinton's use and handling of emails while she served as secretary
of state, has also been broadened to include investigating new email-related revelations, including:
Abedin forwarded classified and top secret State Department emails to Weiner's email
Abedin stored emails, containing government secrets, in a special folder shared with Weiner warehousing over 500,000 archived
State Department emails.
Weiner had access to these classified and top secret documents without proper security clearance to view the records
Abedin also used a personal yahoo address and her Clintonemail.com address to send/receive/store classified and top secret
documents
A private consultant managed Weiner's site for the last six years, including three years when Clinton was secretary of state,
and therefore, had full access to all emails as the domain's listed registrant and administrator via Whois email contacts.
Because Weiner's campaign website is managed by the third-party consultant and political email guru, FBI agents are burdened
with the task of trying to decipher just how many people had access to Weiner's server and emails and who were these people. Or if
the server was ever compromised by hackers, or other actors.
Abedin told FBI agents in an April interview that she didn't know how to consistently print documents or emails from her secure
Dept. of State system. Instead, she would forward the sensitive emails to her yahoo, Clintonemail.com and her email linked to Weiner.
Abedin said, according to FBI documents, she would then access those email accounts via webmail from an unclassified computer
system at the State Dept. and print the documents, many of which were classified and top secret, from the largely unprotected webmail
portals.
Clinton did not have a computer in her office on Mahogany Row at the State Dept. so she was not able to read timely intelligence
unless it was printed out for her, Abedin said. Abedin also said Clinton could not operate the secure State Dept. fax machine installed
in her Chappaqua, NY home without assistance.
Perhaps more alarming, according to the FBI's 302 Report detailing its interview with Abedin, none of the multiple FBI agents
and Justice Department officials who conducted the interview pressed Abedin to further detail the email address linked to Weiner.
There was never a follow up, according to the 302 report.
But now, all that has changed, with the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation and the husband and wife seeking
immunity deals to testify against Clinton and other associates about the contents of the laptop's emails.
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
It is unclear how long this vulnerability exists, but this is pretty serious staff that shows
how Hillary server could be hacked via Abedin account. As Abedin technical level was lower then
zero, to hack into her home laptop just just trivial.
Microsoft also patched
Exchange against a vulnerability that allowed remote attackers with little more than an
unprivileged mailbox account to gain administrative control over the server. Dubbed
PrivExchange, CVE-2019-0686 was publicly disclosed last month , along with
proof-of-concept code that exploited it. In Tuesday's
advisory , Microsoft officials said they haven't seen active exploits yet but that they
were "likely."
"... Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed through the IT department. ..."
"... The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that some departments look outside the organisation for solutions. ..."
Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed
through the IT department. A familiar example of this is BYOD but, significantly, Shadow IT now
includes enterprise grade software and hardware, which is increasingly being sourced and
managed outside of the direct control of the organisation's IT department and CIO.
Examples
include enterprise wide CRM solutions and marketing automation systems procured by the
marketing department, as well as data warehousing, BI and analysis services sourced by finance
officers.
So why have so many technology solutions slipped through the hands of so many CIOs? I
believe a confluence of events is behind the trend; there is the obvious consumerisation of IT,
which has resulted in non-technical staff being much more aware of possible solutions to their
business needs – they are more tech-savvy. There is also the fact that some CIOs and
technology departments have been too slow to react to the business's technology needs.
The reason for this slow reaction is that very often IT Departments are just too busy
running day-to-day infrastructure operations such as network and storage management along with
supporting users and software. The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT
department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the
business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that
some departments look outside the organisation for solutions.
From the semi-serious to the confusingly
ironic, the business world is not short of pseudo-scientific principles, laws and management theories
concerning how organisations and their leaders should and should not behave.
CIO UK
takes a look at
some sincere, irreverent and leftfield management concepts that are relevant to CIOs and all business leaders.
The Peter Principle
A concept formulated by Laurence J Peter in 1969, the
Peter Principle
runs that in a
hierarchical structure, employees are promoted to their highest level of incompetence at which point they are
no longer able to fulfil an effective role for their organisation.
In the
Peter Principle
people are promoted when they excel, but this process falls down
when they are unlikely to gain further promotion or be demoted with the logical end point, according to Peter,
where "every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and that
"work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
To counter the
Peter Principle
leaders could seek the advice of Spanish liberal philosopher
José Ortega y Gasset.
While he died 14 years before the
Peter Principle
was
published, Ortega had been in exile in Argentina during the Spanish Civil War and prompted by his observations
in South America had quipped: "All public employees should be demoted to their immediately lower level, as they
have been promoted until turning incompetent."
Parkinson's Law
Cyril Northcote Parkinson's eponymous law, derived from his extensive experience in the British Civil
Service, states that:
"Works expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
The first sentence of a humorous essay published in
The Economist
in 1955,
Parkinson's Law
is familiar with CIOs, IT teams, journalists, students, and every other occupation that can learn from
Parkinson's mocking of pubic administration in the UK. The corollary law most applicable to CIOs runs that
"data expands to fill the space available for storage", while Parkinson's broader work about the
self-satisfying uncontrolled growth of bureaucratic apparatus is as relevant for the scaling startup as it is
to the large corporate.
Flirting with the ground between flippancy and seriousness, Parkinson argued that boards and members of an
organisation give disproportional weight to trivial issues and those that are easiest to grasp for non-experts.
In his words:
"The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum of money
involved."
Parkinson's anecdote is of a fictional finance committee's three-item agenda to cover a Ł10 million contract
discussing the components of a new nuclear reactor, a proposal to build a new Ł350 bicycle shed, and finally
which coffee and biscuits should be supplied at future committee meetings. While the first item on the agenda
is far too complex and ironed out in two and a half minutes, 45 minutes is spent discussing bike sheds, and
debates about the Ł21 refreshment provisions are so drawn out that the committee runs over its two-hour time
allocation with a note to provide further information about coffee and biscuits to be continued at the next
meeting.
The Dilbert Principle
Referring to a 1990s theory by popular Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, the
Dilbert Principle
runs that companies tend to promote their least competent employees to management roles to curb the amount of
damage they are capable of doing to the organisation.
Unlike the
Peter Principle
, which is positive in its aims by rewarding competence, the
Dilbert Principle
assumes people are moved to quasi-senior supervisory positions in a
structure where they are less likely to have an effect on productive output of the company which is performed
by those lower down the ladder.
Hofstadter's Law
Coined by Douglas Hofstadter in his 1979 book
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid,
Hofstadter's Law
states:
"It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account
Hofstadter's Law."
Particularly relevant to CIOs and business leaders overseeing large projects and transformation programmes,
Hofstadter's Law
suggests that even appreciating your own subjective pessimism in your
projected timelines, they are still worth re-evaluating.
An old adage and without basis in any scientific laws or management principles,
Murphy's Law
is always worth bearing in mind for CIOs or when undertaking thorough scenario planning for adverse situations.
It's also perhaps worth bearing in mind the corollary principle
Finagle's Law
, which states:
"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong - at the worst possible moment."
Lindy Effect
Concerning the life expectancy of non-perishable things, the
Lindy Effect
is as relevant to
CIOs procuring new technologies or maintaining legacy infrastructure as it is to the those buying homes, used
cars, a fountain pen or mobile phone.
Harder to define than other principles and laws, the
Lindy Effect
suggests that mortality
rate decreases with time, unlike in nature and in human beings where - after childhood - mortality rate
increases with time. Ergo, every day of server uptime implies a longer remaining life expectancy.
A corollary effect related to the
Lindy Effect
which is a good explanation is the
Copernican Principle
, which states that the future life expectancy is equal to the current age, i.e.
that barring any addition evidence on the contrary, something must be halfway through its life span.
The
Lindy Effect
and the idea that older things are more robust has specific relevance to
CIOs beyond servers and IT infrastructure with its association with source code, where newer code will in
general have lower probability of remaining within a year and an increased likelihood of causing problems
compared to code written a long time ago, and in project management where the lifecycle of a project grows and
its scope changes, an Agile methodology can be used to mitigate project risks and fix mistakes.
The Jevons Paradox
Wikipedia offers the best economic
description of the
Jevons Paradox
or Jevons effect, in which a technological progress increases efficiency
with which a resource is used, but the rate of consumption of that resource subsequently rises because of
increasing demand.
Think email, think Slack, instant messaging, printing, how easy it is to create Excel reports,
coffee-making, conference calls, network and internet speeds, the list is endless. If you suspect demand in
these has increased along with technological advancement negating the positive impact of said efficiency gains
in the first instance, sounds like the paradox first described by William Stanley Jevons in 1865 when observing
coal consumption following the introduction of the Watt steam engine.
Ninety-Ninety Rule
A light-hearted quip bespoke to computer programming and software development, the
Ninety-Ninety
Rule
states that: "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The
remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time." See also,
Hofstadter's
Law
.
Related to this is the
Pareto Principle
, or the 80-20 Rule, and how it relates to software,
with supporting anecdotes that "20% of the code has 80% of the errors" or in load testing that it is common
practice to estimate that 80% of the traffic occurs during 20% of the time.
Pygmalion Effect and Golem Effect
Named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion, a sculptor who fell in love with a statue he carved, and relevant
to managers across industry and seniority, the
Pygmalion Effect
runs that higher expectations
lead to an increased performance.
Counter to the Pygmalion Effect is the
Golem effect
, whereby low expectations result in a
decrease in performance.
Dunning-Kruger Effect
The
Dunning-Kruger Effect
, named after two psychologists from Cornell University, states
that incompetent people are significantly less able to recognise their own lack of skill, the extent of their
inadequacy, and even to gauge the skill of others. Furthermore, they are only able to acknowledge their own
incompetence after they have been exposed to training in that skill.
At a loss to find a better visual representation of the
Dunning-Kruger Effect
, here is
Simon Wardley's graph with
Knowledge
and
Expertise
axes - a warning as to why self-professed
experts are the worst people to listen to on a given subject.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage and those who manage what they do not understand. --Putt's Law
If
you are in IT and are not familiar with Archibald Putt, I suggest you stop reading this blog
post, RIGHT NOW, and go buy the book
Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat. How to Win in the Information Age . Putt's
Law , for short, is a combination of Dilbert and
The Mythical Man-Month . It shows you exactly how managers of technologists think, how they
got to where they are, and how they stay there. Just like Dilbert, you'll initially laugh, then
you'll cry, because you'll realize just how true Putt's Law really is. But, unlike Dilbert,
whose technologist-fans tend to have a revulsion for management, Putt tries to show the
technologist how to become one of the despised. Now granted, not all of us technologists have a
desire to be management, it is still useful to "know one's enemy."
Two amazing facts:
Archibald Putt is a pseudonym and his true identity has yet to be revealed. A true "Deep
Throat" for us IT guys.
Putt's Law was written back in 1981. It amazes me how the Old IT Classics (Putt's Law,
Mythical Man-Month, anything by Knuth) are even more relevant today than ever.
Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion. --Putt's
Corollary
Putt's Corollary says that in a corporate technocracy, the more technically competent people
will remain in charge of the technology, whereas the less competent will be promoted to
management. That sounds a lot like The Peter Principle (another timeless
classic written in 1969).
People rise to their level of incompetence. --Dave's Summary of the Peter Principle
I can tell you that managers have the least information about technical issues and they
should be the last people making technical decisions. Period. I've often heard that managers
are used as the arbiters of technical debates. Bad idea. Arbiters should always be the
[[benevolent dictators]] (the most admired/revered technologist you have). The exception is
when your manager is also your benevolent dictator, which is rare. Few humans have the
capability, or time, for both.
I see more and more hit-and-run managers where I work. They feel as though they are the
technical decision-makers. They attend technical meetings they were not invited to. Then they
ask pointless, irrelevant questions that suck the energy out of the team. Then they want status
updates hourly. Eventually after they have totally derailed the process they move along to some
other, sexier problem with more management visibility.
I really admire managers who follow the MBWA ( management by walking around
) principle. This management philosophy is very simple...the best managers are those who leave
their offices and observe. By observing they learn what the challenges are for their teams and
how to help them better.
So, what I am looking for in a manager
He knows he is the least qualified person to make a technical decision.
He is a facilitator. He knows how to help his technologists succeed.
Everyone's heard of the Peter
Principle - that employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence - a concept that walks
that all-too-fine line between humor and reality.
We've all seen it in action more times than we'd like. Ironically, some percentage of you
will almost certainly be promoted to a position where you're no longer effective. For some of
you, that's already happened. Sobering thought.
Well, here's the thing. Not only is the Peter Principle alive and well in corporate America,
but contrary to popular wisdom, it's actually necessary for a healthy capitalist
system. That's right, you heard it here, folks, incompetence is a good thing. Here's why.
Robert Browning
once said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp." It's a powerful statement that means you
should seek to improve your situation, strive to go above and beyond. Not only is that an
embodiment of capitalism, but it also leads directly to the Peter Principle because, well, how
do you know when to quit?
Now, most of us don't perpetually reach for the stars, but until there's clear evidence that
we're not doing ourselves or anyone else any good, we're bound to keep right on reaching. After
all, objectivity is notoriously difficult when opportunities for a better life are staring you
right in the face.
I mean, who turns down promotions? Who doesn't strive to reach that next rung on the ladder?
When you get an email from an executive recruiter about a VP or CEO job, are you likely to
respond, "Sorry, I think that may be beyond my competency" when you've got to send two kids to
college and you may actually want to retire someday?
Wasn't America founded by people who wanted a better life for themselves and their children?
God knows, there were plenty of indications that they shouldn't take the plunge and, if they
did, wouldn't succeed. That's called a challenge and, well, do you ever really know if you've
reached too far until after the fact?
Perhaps the most interesting embodiment of all this is the way people feel about CEOs. Some
think pretty much anyone can do a CEO's job for a fraction of the compensation. Seriously, you
hear that sort of thing a lot, especially these days with class warfare being the rage and
all.
One The
Corner Office reader asked straight out in an email: "Would you agree that, in most
cases, the company could fire the CEO and hire someone young, smart, and hungry at 1/10 the
salary/perks/bonuses who would achieve the same performance?"
Sure, it's easy: you just set the direction, hire a bunch of really smart executives, then
get out of the way and let them do their jobs. Once in a blue moon you swoop in, deal with a
problem, then return to your ivory tower. Simple.
Well, not exactly.
You see, I sort of grew up at Texas Instruments in the 80s when the company was nearly run
into the ground by Mark Shepherd and J. Fred Bucy - two CEOs who never should have gotten that
far in their careers.
But the company's board, in its wisdom, promoted Jerry Junkins and, after his untimely
death, Tom Engibous , to the CEO post. Not only were those guys competent, they revived the
company and transformed it into what it is today.
I've seen what a strong CEO can do for a company, its customers, its shareholders, and its
employees. I've also seen the destruction the Peter Principle can bring to those same
stakeholders. But, even now, after 30 years of corporate and consulting experience, the one
thing I've never seen is a CEO or executive with an easy job.
That's because there's no such thing. And to think you can eliminate incompetency from the
executive ranks when it exists at every organizational level is, to be blunt, childlike or
Utopian thinking. It's silly and trite. It doesn't even make sense.
It's not as if TI's board knew ahead of time that Shepherd and Bucy weren't the right guys
for the job. They'd both had long, successful careers at the company. But the board did right
the ship in time. And that's the mark of a healthy system at work.
The other day I read a truly fantastic story in Fortune about the rise and fall of
Jeffrey Kindler
as CEO of troubled pharmaceutical giant Pfizer . I remember when he suddenly stepped down
amidst all sorts of rumor and conjecture about the underlying causes of the shocking news.
What really happened is the guy had a fabulous career as a litigator, climbed the corporate
ladder to general ounsel of McDonald's and then Pfizer, had some limited success in operations,
and once he was promoted to CEO, flamed out. Not because he was incompetent - he wasn't. And
certainly not because he was a dysfunctional, antagonistic, micromanaging control freak - he
was.
He failed because it was a really tough job and he was in over his head. It happens. It
happens a lot. After all, this wasn't just some everyday company that's simple to run.
This was Pfizer - a pharmaceutical giant with its top products going generic and a dried-up
drug pipeline in need of a major overhaul.
The guy couldn't handle it. And when executives with issues get in over their heads, their
issues become their undoing. It comes as no surprise that folks at McDonald's were surprised at
the way he flamed out at Pfizer. That was a whole different ballgame.
Now, I bet those same people who think a CEO's job is a piece of cake will have a similar
response to the Kindler situation at Pfizer. Why take the job if he knew he couldn't handle it?
The board should have canned him before it got to that point. Why didn't the guy's executives
speak up sooner?
Because, just like at TI, nobody knows ahead of time if people are going to be effective on
the next rung of the ladder. Every situation is unique and there are no questions or test that
will foretell the future. I mean, it's not as if King Solomon comes along and writes who the
right guy for the job is on the wall.
The Peter Principle works because, in a capitalist system, there are top performers, abysmal
failures, and everything in between. Expecting anything different when people must
reach for the stars to achieve growth and success so our children have a better life than ours
isn't how it works in the real world.
The Peter Principle works because it's the yin to Browning's yang, the natural outcome of
striving to better our lives. Want to know how to bring down a free market capitalist system?
Don't take the promotion because you're afraid to fail.
Putt's Law, Peter Principle, Dilbert Principle of Incompetence &
Parkinson's Law
Get link
Icons/ic_24_facebook_dark
Facebook
Icons/ic_24_twitter_dark
Twitter
Icons/ic_24_pinterest_dark
Pinterest
Icons/ic_24_google+_dark
Google+
Email
Other Apps
June 10, 2015
Putt's Law, Peter Principle,
Dilbert Principle of Incompetence & Parkinson's Law
I am a big fan of Scott
Adams & Dilbert Comic Series.
I realize that these laws
and principles - the Putt's law, Peter Principle, the Dilbert Principle, and Parkinson's Law
- aren't necessarily founded in reality. It's easy to look at a manager's closed doors and
wonder he or she does all day, if anything. But having said that and having come to realize
the difficulty and scope of what management entails. It's hard work and requires a certain
skill-set that I'm only beginning to develop. One should therefore look at these principles
and laws with an acknowledgment that they most likely developed from the employee's
perspective, not the manager's.
Take with a pinch of salt!
Source: Google Images
The Putt's law:
·
Putt's Law: "
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what
they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand.
"
·
Putt's Corollary: "
Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence inversion.
" with
incompetence being "flushed out of the lower levels" of a technocratic hierarchy, ensuring
that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual technology while
those without technical competence move into management.
The Peter Principle:
The Peter Principle states
that "
in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level
of incompetence."
In other words, employees who perform their roles with competence are
promoted into successively higher levels until they reach a level at which they are no longer
competent. There they remain.
For example, let's say you
are a brilliant programmer. You spend your days coding with amazing efficiency and prowess.
After a couple of years, you're promoted to lead programmer, and then promoted to team
manager. You may have no interest in managing other programmers, but it's the reward for your
competence. There you sit -- you have risen to a level of incompetence. Your technical skills
lie dormant while you fill your day with one-on-one meetings, department strategy meetings,
planning meetings, budgets, and reports.
The Dilbert Principle
The principle states that
companies tend to promote the most incompetent employees to
management as a form of damage control
. The principle argues that leaders, specifically
those in middle management, are in reality the ones that have little effect on productivity.
In order to limit the harm caused by incompetent employees who are actually not doing the
work, companies make them leaders.
The Dilbert Principle
assumes that "the majority of real, productive work in a company is done by people lower in
the power ladder." Those in management don't actually do anything to move forward the work.
How it happens?
The Incompetent Leader
Stereotype often hits new leaders, specifically those who have no prior experience in a
particular field. Often times, leaders who have been transferred from other departments are
viewed as mere figureheads, rather than actual leaders who have knowledge of the work
situation. Failure to prove technical capability can also lead to a leader being branded
incompetent.
Why it's bad?
Being a victim of the
incompetent leader stereotype is bad. Firstly, no one takes you seriously. Your ability to
insert input into projects is hampered when your followers actively disregard anything you
say as fluff. This is especially true if you are in middle management, where your power as a
leader is limited. Secondly, your chances of rising ranks are curtailed. If viewed as an
incompetent leader by your followers, your superiors are unlikely to entrust you with further
projects which have more impact.
How to get over it
Know when to concede. As a
leader, no one expects you to be competent in every area; though basic knowledge of every
section you are leading is necessary. Readily admitting incompetency in certain areas will
take out the impact out of it when others paint you as incompetent. Prove competency
somewhere. Quickly establish yourself as having some purpose in the workplace, rather than
being a mere picture of tokenism. This can be done by personally involving yourself in
certain projects.
Parkinson's Law
Parkinson's Law states that
"
work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
." Although this law has application with procrastination, storage capacity,
and resource usage, Parkinson focuses his law on Corporate lethargy. Parkinson says that
lethargy swell for two reasons:
(1) "A manager wants to
multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Managers make work for each other."
In other words, a team size
may swell not because the workload increases, but because they have the capacity and
resources that allow for an increased workload even if the workload does not in fact
increase. People without any work find ways to increase the amount of "work" and therefore
add to the size of their lethargy.
My Analysis
I know none of these
principles or laws gives much credit to management. The wrong person fills the wrong role,
the role exists only to minimize damage control, or the role swells unnecessarily simply
because it can.
I find the whole topic of
management somewhat fascinating, not because I think these theories apply to my own managers.
These management theories
are however relevant. Software coders looking to leverage coding talent for their projects
often find themselves in management roles, without a strong understanding of how to manage
people. Most of the time, these coders fail to engage. The project leaders are usually
brilliant at their technical job but don't excel at management.
However the key principle to
follow should be this:
put individuals to work in their core
competencies
. It makes little sense to take your most brilliant engineer and have him or
her manage people and budgets. Likewise, it makes no sense to take a shrewd consultant, one
who can negotiate projects and requirements down to the minutest detail, and put that
individual into a role involving creative design and content generation. However, to
implement this model, you have to allow for reward without a dramatic change in job
responsibilities or skills.
While similar things can, and do, occur in large technical hierarchies, incompetent
technical people experience a social pressure from their more competent colleagues that causes
them to seek security within the ranks of management. In technical hierarchies, there is always
the possibility that incompetence will be rewarded by promotion.
Other Putt laws we love include the law of failure: "Innovative organizations abhor little
failures but reward big ones." And the first law of invention: "An innovated success is as good
as a successful innovation."
Now Putt has revised and updated his short, smart book, to be released in a new edition by
Wiley-IEEE Press ( http://www.wiley.com/ieee ) at the end of this month. There
have been murmurings that Putt's identity, the subject of much rumormongering, will be revealed
after the book comes out, but we think that's unlikely. How much more interesting it is to have
an anonymous chronicler wandering the halls of the tech industry, codifying its unstated,
sometimes bizarre, and yet remarkably consistent rules of behavior.
This is management writing the way it ought to be. Think Dilbert , but with a very
big brain. Read it and weep. Or laugh, depending on your current job situation.
"... Eric Samuelson is the creator of the Confident Hiring System™. Working with Dave Anderson of Learn to Lead, he provides the Anderson Profiles and related services to clients in the automotive retail industry as well as a variety of other businesses. ..."
In 1981, an author in the Research and Development field, writing under the pseudonym
Archibald Putt, penned this famous quote, now known as Putt's Law:
"Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage, and those who manage what they do not understand."
Have you ever hired someone without knowing for sure if they can do the job? Have you
promoted a good salesperson to management only to realize you made a dire mistake? The
qualities needed to succeed in a technical field are quite different than for a leader.
The legendary immigrant engineer Charles Steinmetz worked at General Electric in the early
1900s. He made phenomenal advancements in the field of electric motors. His work was
instrumental to the growth of the electric power industry. With a goal of rewarding him, GE
promoted him to a management position, but he failed miserably. Realizing their error, and not
wanting to offend this genius, GE's leadership retitled him as a Chief Engineer, with no
supervisory duties, and let him go back to his research.
Avoid the double disaster of losing a good worker by promoting him to management failure. By
using the unique Anderson Position Overlay system, you can avoid future regret by comparing
your candidate's qualities to the requirements of the position before saying "Welcome
Aboard".
Eric Samuelson is the creator of the Confident Hiring System™. Working with Dave
Anderson of Learn to Lead, he provides the Anderson Profiles and related services to clients in
the automotive retail industry as well as a variety of other businesses.
Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat is a book, credited to the pseudonym Archibald Putt, published
in 1981. An updated edition, subtitled How to Win in the Information Age , was published
by Wiley-IEEE
Press in 2006. The book is based upon a series of articles published in
Research/Development Magazine in 1976 and 1977.
Putt's Law: " Technology is dominated by two types of people, those who understand
what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand. "
[3]
Putt's Corollary: " Every technical hierarchy, in time, develops a competence
inversion. " with incompetence being "flushed out of the lower levels" of a technocratic
hierarchy, ensuring that technically competent people remain directly in charge of the actual
technology while those without technical competence move into management. [3]
Jump up
^ Archibald Putt. Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat: How to Win in the
Information Age , Wiley-IEEE Press (2006), ISBN0-471-71422-4 .
Preface.
^ Jump
up to: ab Archibald Putt. Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat: How to
Win in the Information Age , Wiley-IEEE Press (2006), ISBN0-471-71422-4 . page
7.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage,
and those who manage what they do not understand. -- Archibald Putt
Neoliberal PHBs like talk about KJLOCs, error counts, tickets closed and other types of
numerical measurements designed so that they can be used by lower-level PHBs to report fake
results to higher level PHBs. These attempts to quantify 'the quality' and volume of work
performed by software developers and sysadmins completely miss the point. For software is can
lead to code bloat.
The number of tickets taken and resolved in a specified time period probably the most ignorant way to measure performance of
sysadmins. For sysadmin you can invent creative creating way of generating and resolving
tickets. And spend time accomplishing fake task, instead of thinking about real problem that
datacenter face. Using Primitive measurement strategies devalue the work being performed by Sysadmins and programmers. They focus
on the wrong things. They create the boundaries that are supposed to contain us in a manner that is comprehensible to the PHB who
knows nothing about real problems we face.
Notable quotes:
"... Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. ..."
In an advanced research or development project, success or failure is largely determined
when the goals or objectives are set and before a manager is chosen. While a hard-working and
diligent manager can increase the chances of success, the outcome of the project is most
strongly affected by preexisting but unknown technological factors over which the project
manager has no control. The success or failure of the project should not, therefore, be used as
the sole measure or even the primary measure of the manager's competence.
Putt's Law Is promulgated
Without an adequate competence criterion for technical managers, there is no way to
determine when a person has reached his level of incompetence. Thus a clever and ambitious
individual may be promoted from one level of incompetence to another. He will ultimately
perform incompetently in the highest level of the hierarchy just as he did in numerous lower
levels. The lack of an adequate competence criterion combined with the frequent practice of
creative incompetence in technical hierarchies results in a competence inversion, with the most
competent people remaining near the bottom while persons of lesser talent rise to the top. It
also provides the basis for Putt's Law, which can be stated in an intuitive and nonmathematical
form as follows:
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage, and those who manage what they do not understand.
As in any other hierarchy, the majority of persons in technology neither understand nor
manage much of anything. This, however, does not create an exception to Putt's Law, because
such persons clearly do not dominate the hierarchy. While this was not previously stated as a
basic law, it is clear that the success of every technocrat depends on his ability to deal with
and benefit from the consequences of Putt's Law.
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... "Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"If neocons and neolibs succeed tearing this president down, than 65 million folks
like me will have absolute, incontrovertible evidence that we no longer live in a democracy
and our vote means nothing, therefore we are powerless unless we take to the streets
with..."
It was incontrovertible long ago, these are just the more blatant latest examples. For
instance, giving just one example, a Sec of State using an unauthorized, unsecured personal
email server in her basement most likely to avoid the ability of FOIA requests to find
anything on a particular topic, a server which contained classified emails up to
TS/SCI/TK/NOFORN (spysat stuff) being given a total pass for what anyone who has ever handled
classified materials would know they'd be put in a small room at Leavenworth for.
Then, the now known to be false claim by Comey that the Weiner laptop which almost
certainly contained even the deleted Clinton emails was thoroughly examined:
"Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating
information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before
Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times
the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July
2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
"Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a
month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through
her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this
included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist
group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive
new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
"Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive.
"The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
To conclude:
Mark Baum: It's time to call BS.
Vinnie Daniel: BS on what?
Mark Baum: Every-f'ing-thing.
-- film "The Big Short" (2015)
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email
investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress
that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used
by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above.
Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a
second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite,
File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the
"hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a
sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later
told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to
eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen.
Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the
remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new
emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for
classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single
12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the
evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016,
said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month
of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her
unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included
highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information
and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive
.
The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to
Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that
officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained
the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first
months at the State Department.
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email
discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal
court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel,
along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors
and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest
lawyers.
If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics
have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for
this article said.
"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year
veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an
investigation before the election."
Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of
evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for
sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the
huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant
affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government
business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the
search.
The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New
York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated
back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or
after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton
initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands
of emails sought by investigators.
Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them,
according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not
authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to
receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email
account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.
Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her
campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and
his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand.
At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather
than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.
Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped
his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:
"Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the
United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or
her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of
an FBI investigation?"
What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the
Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes
relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.
However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have
prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was
destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to
2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for
evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it
was, on classified information.
Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged
foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence
on the laptop.
The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located
in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her
2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included
thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a
felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected
manner.
By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.
That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them
work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal."
Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21,
2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry
device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server,
bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal
statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before
Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton
of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling
of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this
case."
Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and
the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility,
including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the
FBI interviewed her.
Fast-forward to September 2016.
FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as
part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A
former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.
On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of
emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a
large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.
The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by
Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of
Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and
hillaryclinton.com.
The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since
investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were
transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and
Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop
in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some
60,000 originally reported by Clinton.
The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain"
immediately.
The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney,
was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to
Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of
this."
(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but
personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated
McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000
relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and
referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation
into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)
McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text
messages show.
Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately
that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could
not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the
emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out
of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely
connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the
time.")
FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery,
particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In
fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's
tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed
"Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as
secretary.
By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he
found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final
count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and
Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the
mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking
terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report.
Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get
somebody elected here in the United States?"
Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New
York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to
his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of
digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career
officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off
alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.
The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which
only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case
reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male -
John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned
to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office
at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.
The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the
sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might
be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really,
really horrible."
Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the
Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a
search and to inform Congress about the discovery.
By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted
McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."
Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs
she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok
responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.
The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly
about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search
warrant.
Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to
reopening email case.
"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner
laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the
U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on
the Clinton investigation.
Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their
feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.
"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the
Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent
Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura
Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought
it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."
Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated
attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the
election."
He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a
suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.
The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed
the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had
been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began
reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and
notify Congress.
FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the
Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at
the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had
exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October
surprise" on Fox News.
Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.
During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about
leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried
about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney
confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks."
McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."
Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an
investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed
to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed
Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to
Congress with the discovery so close to the election.
"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these
emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it,"
then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak
this."
Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new
developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill
oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office
rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big
impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.
But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey
quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight
committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in
the Clinton email investigation.
Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant
emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in
futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."
That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in
the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had
"a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the
Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential,"
according to the IG report.
Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only
one.
Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally
inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman,
who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack
Obama's presidential campaigns.)
His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully
all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with
McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."
In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be
serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping,"
or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.
The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either.
They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time
expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.
For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after
interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different
than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing
emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.
"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different
tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI
employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the
Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to
wrap up her email investigation.)
The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to
another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton
"better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated,
"fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."
At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers
confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process
the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails
"may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the
pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the
laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could
search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.
Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal
email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit.
By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in
the FBI system.
(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his
original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's
handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the
federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal
ramifications for Clinton.)
The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New
York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin
N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it
would find on the laptop.
"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was
Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period,"
Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search
warrant request was "too narrow."
That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's
private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside
investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted,
because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of
emails.
Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found
classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at
those emails, as well.
Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously
described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's
term.
"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both
any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the
potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.
Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential
significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search
warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the
information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of
the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent
had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.
That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of
the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't
really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton
and her team.
"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for
Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even
though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.
In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from
both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the
remaining emails in a hurry.
One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they
should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new
process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."
Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from
a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.
On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that
Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the
stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast
to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted
it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they
contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the
context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.
"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the
Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.
But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his
investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to
national polls opening.
At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should
essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on
Nov. 2.
Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about
what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.
"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very
angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about
all of this."
"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."
Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."
"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he
reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty
[attorney-client] privilege."
Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey
described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it
had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation
– having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and
electronic devices manually.
Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of
new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.
Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that
technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the
laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to
individually review manually.
But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the
emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three
officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for
Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely
absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against
prior emails recovered during the investigation."
Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in
Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."
The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying
characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields –
informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially
work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear
investigation."
Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails
containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As
a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law
enforcement sources say.
"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled
out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished
to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked.
Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at
those documents.
After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate
Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said
during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before
investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop.
High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying"
statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."
A scene from the
documentary "Weiner."
As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to
another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going
to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."
On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about
"drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted
back about an hour later.
The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new
controversy and would still pull off a victory.
"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have
a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic
lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the
remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the
investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.
Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of
new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the
"filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with
6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from
that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal
agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."
On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077
emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and
incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified
material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the
original classification authorities within the intelligence community.
"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.
By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they
had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And
allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a
criminal motive.
Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear
again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.
As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged
text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok
said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."
Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by
a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop
search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless
found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077
emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the
time.
Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not
duplicates but new to investigators.
RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email
regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent
Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.
Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential
high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a
classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and
sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected]
account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."
Tom
Fitton: "sham" investigation.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the
existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of
the 3,077 "work-related" emails.
"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told
RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."
He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.
The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although
investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all
before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone
unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.
Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign
hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined
the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a
foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was
never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.
Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other
intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even
though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach,
gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.
Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division
determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by
unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber
intrusion or other means."
Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State
Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare
a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.
Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its
three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.
Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of
her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.
Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the
confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to
receive them.
The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on
Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been
investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?
Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.
Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling
classified information, Comey explained:
"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what
she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."
At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed
Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the
committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to
interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump
throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical
new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied
by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the
greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to
Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau
attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's
discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan
decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.
Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying
"hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance
warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama
administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster,
to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an
application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.
IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation
of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.
Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias
in regards to the October events."
Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the
cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged
ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified
allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on
"bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which
he said never "affected his work."
The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that
his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.
"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the
matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still,
contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton.
On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the
Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?
The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the
image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the
Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.
But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the
evidence on the device was preserved.
The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually
restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into
the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.
"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and
preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will
return the subject laptop."
Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving
potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and
obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement
authorities.
I have had my suspicions of the divisions inside the FBI ever since late summer of 2016
when it was reported that the NYC FBI was pushing to reveal the Hillary emails found inside
Anthony Weiner's home computer. If you recall rumor had it, that the NYC insistence to go
public forced Comey to reopen the Hillary case uh-oh, darn. I also see Rudy as representative
of the opposing faction against the Comey/Brennan/Claper cabal. The only thing after Trump
bumps these guys off, is how he should shuttle CNN & MSNBC to be continued.
"... Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance. ..."
"... The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit. ..."
"... "I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah, he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief Strzok on that very fact. ..."
"... As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made. ..."
"... I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. ..."
Here is the Congressional Record with the speech by Rep. Gohmert. The excerpt above starts at the 8th paragraph. The version in
the pdf computer file format is three pages long and starts down in the third column. It can be printed out and shown to your
friends as a conversation starter--
Good stuff. Hangs it around the Dems' necks for sure - now what are they going to do about it?
This part "because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days"
isn't necessarily correct, if the emails were duplicates of the others the FBI looked at, which is alleged to be the case. Is
it the case? Who knows? But they could verify that in 2 or 3 days by computer using hashes of the originals compared to the new
ones.
But can we trust them on this? Again, who knows, given what we know now.
Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible
deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who
testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance.
The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very
reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest
governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit.
"I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah,
he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief
Strzok on that very fact.
So you can't claim that he didn't *know*, and even Strzok is only claiming that he can't remember
that he once knew about this.
Apparently his Alzheimer's is so bad that he forgot about it the moment he walked out of the briefing room, because that's
the only possible explanation for why he failed to pass this new information on to the "FBI's geek squad" for their own investigative
pleasure.
Gee, why am I standing here outside the Briefing Room? Must have been heading to the cafeteria to gra . oh, look, a squirrel!
As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified
information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made.
Of course from the perspective of the Hillary investigation which he was running this should have tipped the scale to "gross
negligence" on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner. But as the IG report showed this was always
a political investigation and not a criminal one as it did not follow normal procedures for such cases and exoneration was decided
well in advance. It is good to be the Borg Queen!
I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force
to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. IMO she could be charged
with being an accessory before the fact to espionage against the US.
Here's the Congressional Record transcript of an exhaustive speech Representative Louis
Gohmert (R-Tex) gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives about the penetration of
Hillary Clinton's e-mail system.
{time} 1815
"So, unfortunately, what I brought out in that hearing and he denied recalling should not be
lost in the exchange about his lying. It is far more important.
But for the record, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a felony judge, a chief justice,
and as a Member of Congress, I have asked thousands of witnesses questions. When you have
somebody who has just gotten so good at lying that there is no indication in their eyes
whatsoever that it bothers them to lie, somebody has got to call them out on it. It is just not
good for the state of this Union.
It is also denying credibility to actually have the witness say he doesn't recall getting
information about a foreign entity that is not Russia getting every--actually, it was over
30,000 emails, emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server
and unsecured server and every email she sent out. There were highly classified--beyond
classified--top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server.
Out of the over 30,000 emails that went through that server, all but 4 of them--no
explanation why those 4 didn't get the same instruction, but we have some very good
intelligence people--when they were asked to look at Hillary Clinton's emails, they picked up
an anomaly. As they did forensic research on the emails, they found that anomaly was actually
an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server
to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and
every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is
not Russia.
We know that efforts were made to get Inspector General Horowitz to receive that
information. He would not return a call. Apparently, he didn't want that information because
that would go against his saying that the bias did not affect the investigation.
Of course it affected the investigation. It couldn't help but affect the investigation. It
denies logic and common sense to say somebody with that much animus, that much bias and
prejudice would not have it affect their investigation.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you I know there are people in this House who don't care for me,
but I can also tell you there is no one in this House on either side of this aisle who I would
put up with being investigated and prosecuted by somebody with the hatred, the absolute nasty
prejudice that Peter Strzok had for Donald Trump. I wouldn't put up with it. I would go to bat
for any Democrat in this House, any Republican in this House, the ones who don't like me on
either side. It wouldn't matter.
Nobody in the United States of America should have the full power of the Federal Government
coming after them in the hands of somebody prejudiced, full of hate for that individual. But
such is what we are dealing with here. That is why I laid the groundwork, gave the names of the
people--some of them--that were there when Peter Strzok was informed about Hillary Clinton's
emails for sure going to a foreign entity. This is serious stuff.
What came of our intelligence community providing that information to the FBI agent in
charge, Peter Strzok? Nothing. Peter Strzok received the information that it wasn't
speculation, that maybe Hillary Clinton's emails were capable of being hacked, but we have no
evidence that they were hacked.
All this garbage that we have heard about from reports? No. When the FBI was told her emails
were hacked and every email she received, every email she sent out--over 30,000, except for
4--over 30,000 were compromised and going to a foreign entity not Russia, and Mr. Strzok did
nothing about it.
When I started laying the groundwork pointing out the people, I am told an attorney behind
Mr. Strzok mouthed, ``Oh, my gosh,'' something like that, as I was laying the groundwork. I
don't know if she knew what I was talking about or not, but I thought I picked up just a
fleeting note of detection in Peter Strzok's eyes that he knew what I was talking about.
But, again, for my friends who are not familiar with the true rules of the House, let me
explain. In trial courts, for example, the felony court over which I was a judge, the rules of
evidence are very strict, and we protect the jury from hearing things that don't have any basis
for believability. That is why most hearsay cannot come in, but there are exceptions.
But one rule that you always find in any court, no matter how strict the rules are, the
credibility of the witness is always in evidence, always relevant, always material. The
witness' credibility is always material and relevant.
When it has been as open and everyone in our hearing room knew what has been going on for
such a prolonged period and I saw that look, that is all I could think is: I wonder if that is
the same look you gave your wife over and over when you lied to her about Lisa Page.
The credibility of a witness is always material and relevant. Mark it down.
Now, in our House hearings, the rules are not that strict. It is more in the nature of
anything that we feel may be relevant to the subject at hand. But in a hearing like today, even
things that have nothing to do--they are not germane, they are not relevant, they are not
material to what we are doing, we still have people bring in posters about something that is
not germane, not relevant, not material; and they can get away with doing it, in some cases, as
they did today, even though the rules probably could have restricted keeping some of that out.
We have very relaxed rules, so these kind of things happen.
Like I say, to yell out I am off my meds, yes, that violates the rule, but I am sure my
Democratic friend didn't realize what a rule-breaker she was as she tried to claim I was
breaking the rules, which I was not.
But what really came home, too, is, again, Inspector General Horowitz did a good job
gathering the evidence, except he refused to get the evidence that was offered to him about
Hillary Clinton's emails absolutely, unequivocally being hacked and everything over 30,000,
except for 4, going to a foreign entity not Russia.
You get the picture. The bias made a lot of difference in the outcome of the case.
Horowitz is just wrong about that. He was obviously--as I said at the hearing: So you give
us over 500 pages showing bias by the investigators on the Republican side, and since you don't
want your Democratic friends mad at you, you conclude there is no indication all of this
evidence showed any affect on the outcome.
Well, hello. When you show such hatred and animus in the mind of the lead
[*6168]
Page 6168
investigator and you show that everything that concluded from that investigation was 100
percent consistent with the bias and hatred, you don't have to have the witness agree: You are
right; you caught me. All my bias affected the outcome of my investigation.
Just like a prosecutor who puts on evidence that a guy gets in a car, drives to a bank,
pulls out a gun, holds it to the head of the teller, makes the teller give him money, and
leaves in that car, you have to prove intent, that he intended to rob the bank, but you don't
have to have evidence that the bank robber said, ``Hey, I intend to rob this bank.'' No.
When the results--and there are a lot of results--all of them are consistent with the bias
and the hatred, the disdain, the animus, then you have got at least a de facto case, certainly
one that can get past a motion for summary judgment and get to the jury and put in the hands of
the fact finder.
Again, when you have somebody who is as good at lying to folks over and over and over again
with a straight face, gets a lot of practice, and he comes before Congress--the guy is good. He
is really good.
As I told him--I think, obviously, he and his lawyer had a different opinion, but it seemed
to me it would have been more credible to come in and do what Inspector General Horowitz did,
and say: Yeah, there is a lot of bias here, no question, but I don't think it affected the
outcome.
Of course, he wasn't 100 percent sure, it didn't sound like, that it didn't affect when
Strzok decided to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and when he immediately decided to pick
up the investigation against Trump.
As I heard my friend say over and over about how Comey, of course, just really harmed the
Clinton campaign, they are ignoring something that appeared pretty clear, even without
resorting to people who have provided information about what went on.
{time} 1830
We know Hillary Clinton's emails that she claimed were missing were found on Anthony
Weiner's laptop. Maybe it was Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, one of their laptops. They found
those emails there.
Of course, Peter Strzok, helping the woman whom he thought ought to win 100 million to 0 for
President, wow, that was not good news for people like him who wanted to help Hillary.
They couldn't help the fact that FBI agents, when investigating something else, find all
these missing 30,000 or so emails on this laptop. And they have got the information at least
for some weeks, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. We are not sure, but they had found this
information.
So Comey was in a difficult situation. He wanted Hillary to win, no question. He did not
want Donald Trump to win. He never did like Trump, never has, apparently, things he has said
and done.
So what could he do that would cause the least amount of problems for Hillary Clinton?
There was a threat, apparently, that FBI agents were going to go public that they had found
these missing emails and that Comey was blocking reopening the investigation now that we have
all these emails. And if FBI agents, who are righteous, unlike Peter Strzok, really righteous
people--and I know a lot of them around the country. They are good, decent, upstanding,
honorable, give-their-life-for-their-country kind of people, not give their affair for
themselves but give their lives for their country. Those people have gotten a big blemish on
them because of Peter Strzok and others at the top of the Department of Justice in the last
administration, as they held over. They would never do what Peter Strzok did. They would never
do that.
So it gets a little like they erect a straw dog: You are condemning the thousands of great
FBI agents around the country.
No, I am blaming you. We know they are good, but you are not.
And that is where we have been here. This country is in a lot of trouble. But it was very
clear: Peter Strzok, intentionally and knowingly, with demonstrated prejudice, refused to
pursue the disclosed fact to him, in his presence, that a foreign entity not Russia was getting
every email that Hillary Clinton sent and received. There was classified material in there, and
there was higher than just plain classified. There was extremely sensitive information in
there."
What else did we know? Actually, if you dig what has been uncovered during the last 2 years,
Hillary Clinton had the President's Daily Briefing going to her home. And there are times that
the young man--I believe his name was Oscar Flores--who worked there, they may have tried to
get him a clearance at one time, but, apparently, from what I could read, he didn't have any
kind of clearance, yet he would print stuff off.
The President's Daily Briefing is some of the most sensitive information in the entire
United States Government, extreme sensitivity, and she violated the law by making it accessible
to people without the proper clearance and, certainly, her young man, or man, who was working
there for her.
She violated the law. It wasn't necessary that she have intent; it was just necessary that
she broke the law in that case.
I really would like to have intent be an element of most every crime that is in the Federal
law. I think it would be a good idea. But right now it is not part of the laws she broke.
Yet people like Peter Strzok covered for her. They refused to pursue the things that would
have made her guilty. They went after things to try to hurt Donald Trump.
When you look at that October press conference that Comey had, you realize, gee, what if he
had not called that press conference and you had one or more FBI agents come out and say:
``Hey, we found these emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop weeks ago, and Comey refused to reopen
the investigation''; that would have doomed her election far worse than what happened.
So what, under the circumstances, was the best thing that Comey could do for his friend
Hillary Clinton? It was to get out ahead of anybody disclosing that they had been sitting on
the thought-to-be-lost emails and say: We have got them.
Then, as I had said back at the time, well, we will find out how serious Comey is. If he
comes back within 2 or 3 days and says they have examined all 30,000 or so, whatever, of the
emails, then we will know that this was just a charade to cover for Hillary Clinton, because
they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2
or 3 days.
He came back very quickly, so that it would not affect the election coming up, and
announced: No. Clean bill of health. We looked at all the new evidence. Nothing was there.
Except they still didn't bother to use the information provided by the intelligence
community that was available. They didn't pick it up, didn't do anything with what was
disclosed.
I am telling you, I am very grateful we have people working in this government who want to
protect the United States and want to protect the United States' people. They don't get a lot
of credit, usually don't get any credit, but they do a good job for this country; and my head
and my heart and my salute go out to them as we deal with the mess that has been created by
those with far more selfish motives.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Congressional record
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Personally I'm getting fucking sick of all this. They call the hack the
equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis but no one in government has seen
Hillary's server. This is like Kennedy going on tv and saying 'we are going to
threaten Russia with nuclear war over Cuba. No government agency has actually
seen the photos of missiles but we are told by a credible source of the
"Americans against Russia" group that they are there'
Even NBC can't find
verbal gymnastics to dispute this.
My favorite line in the FBI IG report was when the NYPD analyst mirrored
the Weiner laptop hard drive. They opened one email at random, looked
at it and said:
Perhaps it's the Mandala effect, but I recall watching Adlai Stevenson
laying out black-and-white pictures of Soviet missiles on some military
base which he claimed was in Cuba (Cuber in Kennedy-speak). He did this
while giving a speech to the UN Security Council in October 1962 berating
the Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev in particular for putting missiles
in Cuba. For those too young to remember or too lazy to look it up,
Stevenson was Kennedy's Ambassador to the UN.
Are you telling me that
Stevenson lied about where the military base was? Do we owe a posthumous
apology to Nikita, who incidentally transferred political control of Crimea
from the Russian portion of the USSR to the Ukrainian portion of the USSR
(where Khrushchev was from)?
History certainly is convoluted enough; I hope it's not changing on me.
I don't think you were catching my point. I was not disputing the basis
for the Cuban Missile crisis from the US side.
My point being that we
are willing to bare our teeth and threaten Russia on the basis of a 3rd
party review of the DNC server paid for by the DNC.
If we are going to raise the Russian hack to the equivalency of
Russia placing nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida...shouldn't the
basis for this be based upon an actual government agency review of the
hack?
"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."
"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings,
revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed
FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another
bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among
others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed
intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's
boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified
and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.
And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power
intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's
presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit
------------
A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows
how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?
"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her
servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
pl
Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the
Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the
interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate
people like Bill Browder in the US.
This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to
cooperate in criminal investigation cases.
Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I
don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I
will look into it.
So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an
existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an
existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This
treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100,
150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.
For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by
the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The
appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a
solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate,
hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can
make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including
the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the
country. They can be present at questioning.
In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one.
Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials,
including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States
whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And
we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
End Quote
Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that
Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a
whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!
Quote:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates
of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes.
Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were
transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a
contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that
$400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the
contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This
allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of
questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many
options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
End Quote
This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the
US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian
sanctions.
Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a
calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary
Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election
campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much
as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."
The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to
investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw)
because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.
Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be
basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and
strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a
powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.
From a transcript
http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed,
you can trust no one if you take this.
Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends
the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the
Russian Federation.
We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are
issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our
differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------
Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber
warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller
investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It
posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump
acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though
of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.
Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of
the great Game!
Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or
may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters
to research it and post the correction.
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream.
This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that
there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to
get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear
war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about
freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is
restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in
common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any
prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on
protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning.
Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.
I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are
withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".
"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."
It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense"
budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."
There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security
clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained
classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.
Sir;
Looks like Strzok is about to be thrown under the bus.
He and his paramour have been portrayed as enthusiastic Democrat Party partizans. Would an
operative at Strzoks' level of responsibility be able to do something as negligent as to
ignore solid evidence as this on his own?
At the least, some section of the anti espionage laws appear to have been
transgressed.
This entire 'Russia, Russia, Russia' campaign is now in criminal conspiracy territory.
I can imagine the Maoist Mandarins in Pekin chuckling as they contemplate Americas' new
"Interesting Times."
PL,
What an absolute mess.
Never suspected the Chicoms. They obviously saw the pivot to Asia as a threat and pitched
their tent with the other team (Or anybody but Clinton (ABC)).
I write a "mess" because we also have the GCHQ/Skripal/ Steele dossier angle to mash into
this story too. Crikey.
It'd make a nice John Le Carre book though.
How is Strzok still employed? Ignoring such a revelation is - at best - a display of such
monumental incompetence that he should have been cashiered long ago. Claiming not to remember
being told about this is..... well..... words fail me.
Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave
them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.
That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her
staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.
Strzok was told that by the Intelligence
Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl
Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!
Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy
in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.
The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in
2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.
The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those
two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view
them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."
"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."
"... Fox News reported ..."
"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."
Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing
Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not
follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
(ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going
through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her
emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI
official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG
investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but
nothing else.
Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.
When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker
had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it
four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an
impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the
face.
In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican
leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the
"Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats
immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.
Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his
reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I
think the inspector general has to be very careful here."
McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told
Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he
would be one of the first two fired, he was told.
Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is
information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets
and informants working with the U.S. government.
John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor :
Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's
"unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true
names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse,
some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.
It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.
In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia,
China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
As we sift through the ashes of Thursday's dumpster-fire Congressional hearing with still employed FBI agent Peter Strzok, Luke Rosiak
of the Daily Caller plucked out a key exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Strzok which revealed a yet-unknown bombshell
about the Clinton email case.
Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. When this was discovered
by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to
notify Strzok along with three other people about the "anomaly."
Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach
, however Horowitz "never returned the call." Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok's extreme bias towards
Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump - none of it translated to Strzok's work at the FBI.
In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton's emails
were sent to a foreign entity - while IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private
server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000 ,
were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing
with FBI official Peter Strzok. - Daily
Caller
Gohmert continued; " It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. "
Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't remember the "specific" content of their discussion.
"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that," Gohmert said, "but you were given that information
and you did nothing with it ."
Meanwhile, "Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,"
Gohmert said - and Horowitz wouldn't return the call.
And while Peter Strzok couldn't remember the specifics of his meeting with the IG about the giant "foreign entity" bombshell,
he texted this to his mistress Lisa Page when the IG discovered the "(C)" classification on several of Clinton's emails - something
the FBI overlooked:
"Holy cow ... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually
ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this."
In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed to Fox News that
he received pushback when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper about the foreign entity which had Clinton's emails and other
anomalies.
Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter
acusing him of politicizing the issue.
"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information," he said.
McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he
tried to rectify the situation.
"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the "political
consequences" of the information he was blowing the whistle on. -
Fox News
That other Clinton whistleblower...
Meanwhile, a mostly overlooked facet of the Clinton email investigation was unearthed from the official "
FBI Vault " by Twitter researcher Katica (
@GOPPollAnalyst ) in November and updated on July 10 which somehow
never made it into the Inspector General's
report on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
In January, 2016 a former State department official walked into the FBI with what they felt was smoking gun evidence in the Clinton
email investigation which was so sensitive he wouldn't talk about it unless it was in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility).
Accompanying the evidence, the whistleblower wrote a letter to former FBI Director James Comey describing Hillary Clinton's mishandling
of clearly marked classified material. Comey ignored it - which led the whistleblower to file a complaint that Peter Strzok and FBI
agent Jonathan Moffa were CC'd on .
" The evidence I am providing, along with what you have already acquired, should lead to convictions for the many people involved
."
"America needs its Attorney General to show us that no employee of the United States Government is above its system of law
and justice."
"Since I am avoiding any classified information in this statement, I will not expand on this issue further in this letter.
I am prepared to discuss this issue in much greater depth in a properly secured location and with those agents having certain
TS/SCI clearances and an FBI letter showing need to know."
The whistleblower describes how there's no way Clinton couldn't have known certain emails were marked "classified."
"During the time that Hillary Rodham Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Department of State (DOS) produced a daily document
classified at the Secret level...
...Each of these daily classified documents began each paragraph with the actual classification of the information contained
in the paragraph...
...An investigation that compares the emails found on the private server or emails used by the Secretary will show the actual
classification any text which appears to be both in the Hillary emails and in the daily classified document produced by her official
office...
"Upon learning of this situation and listening to her saying that the information in these emails were not classified at the
time they were written, I make reference to the above paragraph about the daily classified document summarizing issues presented
to her on a daily basis."
The Whistleblower also goes on to explain that he couldn't find a sensitive communiqué between Clinton and the American Ambassador
in Honduras on the internal State Department archive, and suspected that it was due to being sent over her private email server.
Strzok knew that most of Hillary Clinton's emails were in the hands of a foreign entity
He also knew that a whistleblower from the State Department tried delivering significant evidence in the Clinton email investigation
which went nowhere
The FBI, and Comey in particular, ignored this whistleblower's evidence
So given that we now have at least two major bombshells that the FBI sat on, we revisit the case of CIA whistleblower Dennis Montgomery
- who similarly walked into the Washington D.C. FBI field office in 2015 with 47 hard drives and 600 million pages of information
he says proves that President Trump and others were victims of mass surveillance, according to
NewsMax .
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives
and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out
how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama
administration .
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information , much of which is classified,
and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence
committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans,
including the chief justice of the Supreme Court , other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and
even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's
former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion
on privacy , likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election , which illegal
tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House. -
NewsMax
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
I want to see that hags emails dammnit! As we dig deeper every day, the foul stench of this woman keeps popping up. I know
we have not connected Ofaggot to it YET, but we WILL!!!! There are so many complicit pieces of shit that I don't there is enough
hemp in the world to do the job!!
Frog march, trial, death!
Hang them by the neck until dead for HIGH TREASON!!!! tap, tap, tap
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
Armed revolts have happened for less than this kind of bullshit. It's time that the people of the USA start taking matters
of government into their own hands because the longer this kind of shit happens the more it looks like every one of those motherfuckers
in Dee See is dirty to some extent.
Oh yeah, how about we also make the use of "national security" secrecy claims that are made under false pretenses, or are made
to hide the illegal/unconstitutional actions of a person or group in government, punishable by death by firing squad??
Given they found that these emails were being sent to a server in a foreign country, I'd expect the hackers would know that
this could be found out. Thus, the hackers would have then had the emails forwarded to their server in their country. I wouldn't
be surprised that the owner of the server to which they were sent, never knew of it. My guess, considering all the circumstantial
evidence, is that it was Putin's hackers.
I've long suspected that Putin got all the emails off her server (including Bill's, Chelsea's, and possibly Clinton Foundation
officials), along with the 20 emails exchanged with Obama suspiciously using an alias, and about which he lied claiming he learned
of her server in news reports. That would be plenty for Putin to blackmail them into appeasement and flexibility. Which was exactly
what Obama and Hillary gave Putin and his allies Syria and Iran. Along with the US uranium. They had to cover it up, so Obama
could get re-elected (remember he promised Russian President Medvedev he'd "have more flexibility after the [2012] elections"
on a hot mic) and both could stay in power.
This would explain why the FBI and Strzok did nothing about the hacking of her server (it was too late to do anything about
it, other than arrest Clinton and Obama resign). And any investigation would document evidence Clinton committed a crime and potentially
leak to the press with the implication Clinton and Obama were now Putin puppets. The Democrats have an MO of claiming their political
opponents are doing exactly what the Democrats are doing.
They weren't supposed to deploy it...NSA wanted to save that puppy for a rainy day, but the beaks just couldn't help themselves.
It was too hot to use, because if you didn't make it count then the target now has the virus and can share it, tweak it and send
it back our way.
This will come out soon. Strzok was up to his ass in Stuxnet. General Cartwright was too. All this will come out. It will also
come out that this was another instance where action was taken completely without Obama's authorization or knowledge.
The phony OBL hit was another example. Obama didn't have the stones...and just told Panetta and Hillary to do whatever, he
didn't want to know or be involved. He was golfing. They snatched him off the green for that war room photo op.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
...
Posted by: Pft | Jul 14, 2018 4:56:10 PM | 102
(Strzok's forgetfulness about a briefing he attended on the subject of the destination
address omitted from the distribution list)
You're not the only one. And it's fascinating, in a creepy way, that the address is known
to the investigators but remains undisclosed.
"Decameron" over at SST has indulged in some speculation on the possibilities... ...
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13th in Washington, but
Strzok claimed no recollection. Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about
the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard FBI training: i.e.,
when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate
obstructing justice, selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded
in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department, FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not
alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread.
...
Almost as interesting as the story itself is the fact that the thread at SST is struggling
to attract comments.
"Foreign actors" obtained access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
emails -- including at least one email classified as "secret" -- according to a new memo from
two GOP-led House committees and an internal FBI email.
Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which
lays out key interim findings ahead of next week's hearing with Justice Department Inspector
General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated
report on the Clinton email case later Thursday.
The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016
and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton's email security.
"Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs.
Clinton's emails -- including at least one email classified 'Secret,'" the memo says, adding
that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers.
The memo does not say who the foreign actors are, or what material was obtained, but it
notes that secret information is defined as information that, if disclosed, could "reasonably
be expected to cause serious damage to the national security."
The committees say that no one appears to have been held accountable either criminally or
administratively.
Relatedly, Fox News has obtained a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok -- who
also is criticized in the House memo for his anti-Trump texts with colleague Lisa Page. The
email says that "we know foreign actors obtained access" to some Clinton emails, including at
least one "secret" message "via compromises of the private email accounts" of Clinton
staffers.
"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."
"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."
Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing
all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin
said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT
RUSSIA
(excerpts)
"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were
going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert
said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette
McMillan, to brief Strzok
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread
The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile
foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community
Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
Strzok: I do not.
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette
McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this
time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from
the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not
recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to
those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had
found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for
four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It
was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do
you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don't.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.
Strzok: No.
Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an
unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said
here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all
that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary
Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but
you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
"The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary
Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic
analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going
to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of
Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
"It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,"
he added."
I guess we can count on "Cover it Up" Mueller to look into this and sit on it.
Meet Mystery FBI "Agent 5" Who Sent Anti-Trump Texts While On Clinton Taint Team
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/22/2018 - 21:25 32.9K SHARES
A recently unmasked FBI agent who worked on the Clinton email investigation and exchanged
anti-Trump text messages with her FBI lover and other colleagues has been pictured for the
first time by the Daily Mail .
Sally Moyer, 44, who texted 'f**k Trump,' called President Trump's voters 'retarded' and
vowed to quit 'on the spot' if he won the election , was seen leaving her home early Friday
morning wearing a floral top and dark pants.
She shook her head and declined to discuss the controversy with a DailyMail.com reporter,
and ducked quickly into her nearby car in the rain without an umbrella before driving off. -
Daily Mail
Moyer - an attorney and registered Democrat identified in the Inspector General's report as
"Agent 5" is a veritable goldmine of hate, who had been working for the FBI since at least
September of 2006.
When Moyer sent the texts, she was on the "filter team" for the Clinton email investigation
- a group of FBI officials tasked with determining whether information obtained by the FBI is
considered "privileged" or if it can be used in the investigation - also known as a taint team
.
Moyer exchanged most of the messages with another FBI agent who worked on the Clinton
investigation, identified as 'Agent 1' in the report.
Moyer and Agent 1 were in a romantic relationship at the time, and the two have since
married , according the report. Agent 1's name is being withheld. -
Daily Mail
Some of Moyer's greatest hits:
"fuck Trump"
"screw you trump"
"She [Hillary] better win... otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns.
"
Moyer also called Ohio Trump supporters "retarded"
"Agent 1" who is now married to Moyer, referred to Hillary Clinton as "the President" after
interviewing the Democratic candidate as part of the email investigation.
Another FBI official, Kevin Clinesmith, 36, sent similar text messages. A graduate of
Georgetown Law, Clinesmith - referred to in the Inspector General's report as "Attorney 2," -
texted several colleagues lamenting the "destruction of the Republic" after former FBI Director
James Comey reopened the Clinton email investigation.
In response to a colleague asking he had changed his views on Trump, Clinesmith responded "
Hell no. Viva le resistance ," a reference to the Trump opposition movement that clamed to be
coordinating with officials inside the Trump administration.
Two high-ranking FBI officials - Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, were discovered by
the Inspector General to have sent over 50,000 text messages to each other - many of which
showed the two harbored extreme bias aginst Trump and for Hillary Clinton. Like Moyer and
"Agent 1," Strzok and Page worked on the Clinton email investigation.
Note, female plumbing and a law degree have been the only real qualifications Hillary
Clinton had. Anyone who backed such an obvious criminal and worked within the FBI has
questionable assets to be in the FBI.
They pushed Clinton on us because she was a woman and because there are hundreds, if not
hundreds of thousands of high powered hands that have been greased by her and Billy. The
server wasn't about national security.
It was about hiding dirty deals and treason. Did Hillary have a plan other than to
continue to turn the USA over to the UN and other international neofascist, socialist
organizations? We were always referred to her website for her plans. The Democratic Party no
longer cares for the Constitution. Which means they have no charter with which to order us
around.
Really need to get Mueller in front of a TV camera to explain why Strzok/Page were removed
from his investigation, but deemed not biased in the IG report. Like to see how he threads
that needle.
I'm beginning to think the IG report is intended to provide a firewall between all the
eager-to-please go-getters who stepped over the line and the upper levels of the DoJ and the
Obama White House. The theme that was leaked ahead of time was that Comey was insubordinate
and did what he wanted (looks to be partially true), gives a great background where the
higher ups can shake their heads and say 'we only wanted impartial investigations'. The
problem being Lowretta's tarmac meeting with Bill. She had to get something out of that
meeting - and nailing down what she got would really shake the house of cards. Wonder if she
suddenly had the cash for a beach front home.
Perhaps not. Loretta owes her existence to Bill, she's smart/dumb enough not to leverage
against anything he demands of her- she's seen up-close how it goes when you say "no" to the
Clintons.
The entire Clinton administration is loyal to Bill- that's his one power. I went to school
with a guy who worked in Bill's inner circle in the White House- a guy who I thought was
capable of critical thinking.... He told me Bill's charm with people was unreal- if he told
you to kill your mother to make him happy, you'd find a way to do it;
To this day, my friend still doesn't understand how, but he knows he was under that
Clinton spell. And no, his mother isn't around anymore....
After 9/11 Mueller decided to change the make up of the FBI, he wanted nerds. This was
written in many articles of how Mueller was staffing the FBI with a new FBI. Considering
Mueller's actions at the FBI, I would say he shouldn't be in charge of anything....
Old lost stories from the past are never correlated to the future events it causes. The
media refuses to tell the truth on anything. The media workers who lie are the same as the
FBI agents and the entire government that lies, it is accepted by the Deep State to lie
because they are the rulers, not congress and a president, that's for show.
Here's a good one, when Obama went to Harvard, it was a major program to bring people from
other countries and pay their way, it became Harvard's new method of operation to deflect and
to escape critical comments about Legacy, which means if a parent went to Harvard, then one
can get into Harvard ahead of everyone else. So the reason Obama will not release any data on
Harvard is because he said he was from Kenya to get in and to have his way paid because he
was considered a foreigner.
Very interesting and perceptive. I listen to talk show hosts in the independent media who
bemoan lack of accountability: "Why is nobody indicted? Why isn't [a particular sociopath] in
jail?" The answer is simple, and you just provided it.
Yes, this government is corrupt in its entirety, bloated and twisted beyond recognition.
Once an organization is hijacked by sociopaths, complete destruction is just a matter of
time, but the trouble is, unless their power is taken away, the sociopaths get to do much
more damage, as they take down everyone else with them. i know; I've witnessed in microcosm
(a medium-sized business). Small wonder that they want to disenfranchise and disempower the
electorate. Sociopaths fear a reckoning.
Will there BE a reckoning? Just look at what some of the worst scum are getting away with
over the last few decades. Does anybody seriously believe the time will come again when
crowds gather around lampstands?
USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people
around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn.
If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient
abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit
deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for
governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious
crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international
relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able
to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies
start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of
affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also
behave with great circumspection. (2nd. ed., p. 140)
It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law . Ps 119:126, KJV
"USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people
around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn."
The world was taught that JFK was an anomaly cancelled out by Apollo and that Korea and
Vietnam were anomalies too.
Since then we have had the obvious false flag of 9/11 and the world learned the hard way
that Korea and Vietnam were the normal and peace was the anomaly, and that Apollo was also a
pack of lies, the world has also seen the US break every agreement it ever made including big
ones like the ABM. In breaking the Iran agreement and staying in Syria the world has learned
that the US supports ISIS and cannot be trusted at any level or at any time.
Parallel to the externally visible decline of the US the infrastructure was abandoned at
the same time as it's principals and morals: Bush junior, to have had 260,000 people ar
Oroville put into danger as a dam nearly collapsed due to lack of a basic and well known low
cost venturi fix to eliminate cavitation on the spillway from eating the containment.
Added to this the US is still making bad decision after bad decision (hosting the World
cup next is the latest - that will backfire badly) as all its decision making is overtly now
taken by Israel - it's not going to end well.
We've been Tyrannically Lawless for so long that when even the most logical laws are
broken, enforcing them becomes impossible with the constant barrage of Deep State PsyOp
carried out by their Presstitute appendages.
The Criminal actions of spying, Political Persecution & Espionage carried out by
highly Compartmentalized Levels of the CIA, FBI & DOJ on a Presidential Candidate should
be indicative of the absolute, complete, open, in your Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness the
Republic and The American People find themselves in today.
The National Security Elimination Act of 2018
The United States survived quite nicely for 130+ years with neither a Criminal FBI, CIA,
IRS nor the Federal Reserve. Let's return to those better days ASAP.
Would precisely achieve that objective & more by recentrailizing the "Intelligence"
Agencies. By Elimination of rouge Criminal Agencies such as the Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at & in the CIA.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former
CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Raw
Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British
Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a
Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.
And, If Obama, Lynch & Clapper all agreed 17 days out to change the surveillance
structure of the NSA. What date exectly did the changes occur in relation to the first FISA
request for the Trump Wire Taps? (We now know that the Criminal FISA requests occurred in
October 2016.)
Elimination of the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths in the Deep
State & CIA.
As easily as The National Security Act was signed in 1947 it can & must be
Eliminated.
Former Secret Serviceman, Gary Byrne, who filed rico against Clinton, Soros, Brock and
others a few days ago, said it best. The secret service doesn't work to protect the
President. It works to protect the Secret Service. So does the FBI, DOJ, HUD and all the
other Federal bureaucracies. They don't work for us, they work for them. They are aiding and
abetting the theft of trillions from us, people who work for a living. No one else pays
taxes, as the rich, many who work for a living very hard (witness our President, who at age
72 can work rings around about every bureaucrat in DC), get their money from those who work
for a living, directly or indirectly.
This begs the question, why so much resistance in Trump fixing trade and immigration? We
must ask also, why is the Constitution not being taught in schools? Not just the first
amendment, but the limitations of Washington DC, which seems to get its power from the
preamble, throwing all other limitations of the DC government contained in the body of
Article 1, 2 and 3 out the window. Who gets the bill for trade imbalances? Who gets the
money? The entire economy is a balance sheet. Is there so much debt around the world that it
requires the mortgaging of every piece of real estate and improvements to support it? What
about gold and silver coin, which kept debt in check along with trade? Bank runs were really
only bad for bankers. Massive supplies of unskilled labor merely keeps those jobs cheap and
the unskilled, who develop skills never get paid. The education system is a costly farce and
over 1/2 of Americans have no business in college, or for that matter, high school after
about the 8th grade. Why is the United States being drained of its capital?
Do you think it has stopped. The career management is still in place and will not rooted
out.
The FBI, and others IRS for example), have evolved into a political strong arm agency,
with an agenda. They will shield illegal activity they fell supports their agenda. They will
use selective enforcement to stomp down their political opponents. They will use false
persecution to destroy their political opponents, including the use of false evidence, false
"professional interpretation" of data/info while on the witness stand, entrapment, special
deals for those who provide the needed testimony and so on.
As far as I'm concerned the entirety of the 17 three-letter Gestapo* (Geheime
Staatspolizei) agencies are fucking domestic enemies. It's getting close to the point where
we all just say fuck it, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, if that is it's his day to
give a fuck, which I hope it isn't.
*The Gestapo was modeled on the FBI, not the other way around folks.
Good point. I'd forgotten about their good buddies in the Cheka and successors, OGPU, NKVD
People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del) and KGB
(Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti).
"... "take immediate action on the Weiner laptop" ..."
"... "willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects." ..."
"... "Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
The FBI's inquiry into hundreds of thousands of emails found on a laptop belonging to former
Congressman Anthony Weiner may have been improperly shelved to focus on the agency's Russia
investigation, a DOJ report states. A review of the FBI's investigations into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server by the DOJ inspector general
concluded that federal investigators failed to "take immediate action on the Weiner
laptop" due in part to a decision to "prioritize" the investigation into claims
that Donald Trump " colluded" with Russia.
The FBI leadership waited nearly a month after receiving initial information about the
laptop to reopen the investigation and notifying Congress about it, the IG report
shows.
Citing text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who said in one message that he
would "stop" then-candidate Trump from being elected, the report notes that federal
investigators may have been "willing to take official action to impact a presidential
candidate's electoral prospects."
"Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related
investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," the report
concludes on page
329.
The contents of Weiner's laptop became the subject of widespread speculation during the
FBI's 2016 probe into Clinton's private email server and alleged mishandling of classified
data. Weiner, the now ex-husband of top Clinton aide and adviser Huma Abedin, became a person
of interest for federal investigators after it was discovered that he had sent sexually
explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl in 2016.
Weiner had resigned from Congress in 2011 after it was revealed he sent lewd photographs and
messages to women.
In September 2016, as part of the investigation into his communication with the underage
teen, an FBI agent in New York found hundreds of thousands of emails on Weiner's laptop that
were possibly relevant to the Clinton investigation.
In December 2017, it was revealed that at least
five of the emails stored on Weiner's laptop were marked "confidential" and involved
delicate talks with Middle Eastern leaders and Abedin.
Weiner is currently serving a 21-month sentence in federal prison for sending obscene
material to a minor.
The DOJ IG report also noted that then-FBI Director James Comey violated procedure in
announcing to Congress that the bureau was reopening an investigation into Clinton's emails
just days before the 2016 presidential election.
Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the
announcement contributed to her loss to Trump.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the
Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through
WikiLeaks disclosures:
Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.
Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:
President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a
New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after
his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.
' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. -
CBS
The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with
whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "
What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over
whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew
Obama had lied :
"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that
hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange
with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed
to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."
My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President
Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok
We already knew all of this though...
In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's
statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her -
they do not say state.gov"
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
later claimed
that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President,
as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."
The
Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative
file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "
The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.
"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"
Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.
We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier,
I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know
much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his
case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John
Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is
going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this
Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen
to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck
Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier
Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President
Obama & President Elect Trump."
It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference.
It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states
shut that down.
Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign,
providing political intelligence.
Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret
wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way
to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted
genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what
they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?
Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump
from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations
with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton,
coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember
McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't
vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's
because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who
is for this nation.
The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the
last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency,
created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush
II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to
submit to the state and to give up our rights.
The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so
they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming
out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term
plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people.
They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's
have the money to rule America.
That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it
wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.
Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses
Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE
"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."
Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting
on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.
"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".
I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized
that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.
The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells.
There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.
But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings
or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!
What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually
an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).
"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"
The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.
I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow
who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him
a White Hat in this whole saga.
Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of
how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).
When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken.
It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen
is a huge step towards that worthy goal.
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
"Here was material that I knew someday, when it's declassified, and I thought that
would be decades in the future, would cause historians to wonder, "Hmm, was there some
strange business going on there? Was Loretta Lynch somehow ... carrying water for the
campaign and controlling what the FBI did?"' Comey said.
I read his narrative as presented by the Daily Mail differently. He seems to try to
explain his much criticized going public on the Clinton mail issue -- pretty unique for the
FBI to do so, no? -- was the decision based on other matters going on at the same time.
....
As I read it, he seems to claim he didn't want the FBI to be connected to the Obama-Bill
Clinton & Lynch on the tarmac conspiracy theme in the public eye. ....
It was a bizarre moment in US history anyway, from Benghazi to the Clinton mails right
into the middle of an election campaign. With one of the candidates still under
investigation.
Comey said Obama's meddling surprised him. 'He's a very smart man and a lawyer ... He
shouldn't have done it. It was inappropriate,' Comey said.
I agree.
'What I can say is the material is legitimate,' he said. 'It is real. The content is
real. Now, whether the content is true is a different question. And again, to my mind, I
believed it was not true. '
What he vaguely refers to can be related to one three categories. Matters that Juridical
Watch's FOIA efforts around the Bill Clinton - Lynch tarmac meeting hasn't brought to the
surface yet:
that said, how comes I doubt my ability in English grammar while reading the Daily Mail
article vs the linked Washington Post one. Have to take a closer look at one passage were the
use of tense puzzled me.
Let me help you with this. Democratic party advisor and former communications director for
the white house under President Clinton interviewed a man complicit in stifling the Clinton -
Hilary- email scandal by spending an hour deflecting attention from Comey' s conduct.
That truth about George's past neither lied about, they just refused to mention the
blatant conflict of interest the interviewer had hoping nobody in America would remember.
Of course it is Trump's fault for coining the phrase "fake news" and sticking that truth
on Stephanopoulos and the rest. Now they are just proving how right Trump is regarding the
American press core.
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
"... Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise, surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified material". No intent is required for there to be a crime. ..."
"... Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all" emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed" emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them. ..."
"... The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that! ..."
Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She
ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise,
surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information
on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified
material". No intent is required for there to be a crime.
Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton
months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all"
emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed"
emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard
drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them.
The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to
Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that!
Her husband, Bill Clinton, coincidentally (yeah, right!) meets Loretta Lynch on an Arizona
tarmac for 45 minutes. The Attorney-General of the United States, who has the wife of this
man under investigation, stops to talk with him? What? Who does that? A first year law
student wouldn't have done this. Loretta Lynch should have been fired on the spot. Instead,
she leaves the decision up to Comey. That's not Comey's job. His job is to pass on the
evidence he collects to the Attorney-General. She, or someone in her department, makes the
decision, not Comey.
I know all about addiction. It isn't pretty. A destroyer of lives. Trump's brother was an
alcoholic, I believe, who died early. He warned Trump never to smoke or drink, and Trump took
his advice. He does neither. He saw what it did to his loved one.
I'm also a great admirer of Charles Dickens, one of the greatest writers ever to live! But
even his characters are rife with repeating the same behaviors over and over again, even
destructive ones. You can't help an addict that isn't ready for your help, unless you want to
bash your head into a brick wall repeatedly. I know. I've been there and done that.
The opioid epidemic didn't just start on Trump's watch. It really got kicked into high
gear after the 2008 financial crisis. Doctors were prescribing opioids to whole towns,
thinking it was better for them to get disability than be out on the streets. Wrong move.
People are getting their hands on these pills, and then reselling them, making small
fortunes. And a lot of these opioids are being laced with Fentanyl (coming in from China).
Deadly stuff!
The country has completely lost its moral center, its communities, its sense of decency.
This has been happening for decades now. It's a great shame what has happened to a once-great
country.
The whole story of Hillary's using a personal server for all communications, including
classified material, is something I found incredibly stupid. I am a retired Radio Operator,
and worked for an MSC contracted ship for my last six years, and had "secret" clearance. Our
computer had a separate hard drive for all classified communications, that was removed after
each download/upload and stored in a safe. If I had mishandled any classified info, I have no
doubt I'd be in prison.
Hillary is even quoted as saying she thought the (c) in communications didn't refer to
"classified", but was an enumeration, although she never bothered to ask where the (a) and
(b) were.
The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in
the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process,
I don't know what is.
backwardsevolution , March 20, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Hi, Skip. I'm glad you followed orders and didn't end up in the brig. Hillary, on the
other hand, seems to like to ignore rules. When asked if she wiped her servers clean, she had
the gall to say, "Do you mean with a cloth?" Talk about feigning ignorance. Her life was the
government, and to think that she didn't know what "classified" meant is too much of a
stretch for anyone.
She knew exactly what she was doing. She just never dreamed that she'd get caught. She
didn't want to use the government servers because they have a back-up system, and when you're
trying to elicit money from foreign governments in exchange for favors, you don't want to be
on a system with a back-up. You want to be able to control that system yourself, as in
deleting everything. She was trying to get around future Freedom of Information requests by
having her own servers.
And that Peter Strzok, who the heck is this guy and who gave him permission to change the
wording? And he's the same guy who interviewed General Flynn. The whole thing stinks. There
is no way that Strzok would have done what he did without someone higher up telling him to.
Hillary's helpers were all given immunity before they even started talking, and apparently
they weren't interviewed separately, but all together in one room. What?
Skip, you have a nice day and don't let this stuff get you down.
The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's
laptop, the
Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett
was recently outed as a
potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of
political bias)
... ... ...
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on
the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according
to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election
McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay
Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived
bias
Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article
which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state
legislature.
"... The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information. ..."
"... As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public. ..."
"... It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules. ..."
"... I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign. ..."
"... It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all know she did. ..."
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the
mishandling of highly classified national security information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping
procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's government email correspondence. In
2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account, while reviewing documents for the Benghazi
investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence
stored on her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further
revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that
Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and
record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say
they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
I appreciate your comment. I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation
of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping
her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign.
It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all
know she did.
The point is, if you're commitment to partisan baloney allows you to squint at the Democratic Party's Putinization of the FBI,
enjoy your police state. I'm sure you'll make the enemies list sooner or later.
[I recognize people really hate Trump, and there are many legitimate reasons why he is really hateful. But are you going to
embrace police state tactics just to bring down Trump?
I think people who do are damn fools.]
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
New text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have now been made public, and,
as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou notes , the big reveal is that then-POTUS Barack Obama appears to be in the loop, on the whole 'destroy
Trump' insurance plan hatched by upper management at the FBI.
Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." Senate investigators
told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.
...Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, "The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it."
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former
congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential
election.
On Sept. 28, 2016 Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned
over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team
up tomorrow to review this will never end." Senate investigators told Fox News this text message raises questions about when FBI
officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband
to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was reopening
its Clinton email investigation.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.
I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday " Comey said at the time.
The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop
were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.
The point of this is IF phone numbers and addresses got leaked, can other contents, like some of the compromising emails not
find their way to the surface as well, or any other sensitive material stored there...? Was this leak a warning or a prelude to
something bigger coming...?
Hey stupid fuck...this is no longer about who did or did not win the election.
This is about the FBI knowingly using false evidence to try and take down a legally elected president...and now we are learning
that it was endorsed not just by the Hillary campaign but now Obama apparently wanted to be kept in the know.
If this does not literally make you shake with anger or fear that our democracy has been 100% compromised simply because its
the 'red team' being targeted, then please just hop a fucking boat now to some shithole country that the liberals love so much
and get that much needed dose of reality about what this means.
Actually shivura has a point. I have always wondered why did Comey make reopening HRC's investigation public even as they made
sure the investigations did not go anywhere. It is not as if they were driven to uphold propriety in all of their other actions.
Why break so many rules in trying to save her and get her elected, and then inform everyone just before the elections that Weiner's
laptop had HRC emails. It adds sleaze to the mix, and to HRC by association. You can argue that HRC needs no help in that department,
but I am sure some people had a visceral reaction of revulsion on hearing HRC emails were on the laptop with other stuff.
Clinton spent about 1.1 BILLION dollars, had FISA Title 1 surveillance on Trump, full deep sate, globalist, swamp, backing,
was given debate questions in advance, full support of entire main stream media, election rigging in her favor and she STILL LOST?
The first time I knew Obama was directly involved was when it was discovered, thanks to wikileaks, Obama was sending emails
through Clinton's home server USING AN ALIAS. They all knew she was breaking the law, yet they protected her from prosecution
and then colluded to get her elected, using scores of illegal activities to do it. This is so bad they might not be able to do
anything about it, as it encompasses so many deep state agencies and actors. There may not be enough loyal Americans in DC to
uphold the law.
They apparently don't. Hearing from William Binney about how the technical means works means it is a system nearly impossible
to prevent abuses. Mr. Trump: Tear down the Utah data center.
I had suspected that the tarmac meeting was Lynch unmasking Seth Rich to the Clinton's. This revelation about a SC nomination
doesn't preclude that she fingered Rich. Somebody did, and he was 'made an example of'.
Looks like the trap has snapped shut and many conspirators are caught including Obama. Is there now any doubt that the elimination
of 4th amendment protections after 9/11 has been a disaster?
"It was set up by the FBI and when they realized how totally illegal it was they just handed it over to Clapper and Brennan.
.. Barry Oked The scam transfer, I suspect so that he could use it too.
It was/is used for one thing. .. To build blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion
Tool. .. NOTHING legal about it."
You've just explained in two sentences the entire Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Operation of our lifetime. Same
spying tactics used decades by MI6 / British Intelligence. Only difference being, it's the first of its kind "Information Highway"
Spy Ring utilizing an expanded Surveillance Infrastructure.
This entire Criminal Deep State Intelligence Operation was data mining formuling the first of its kind Parallel Construction
Case consisting of a Criminal Deep State CIA, FBI, DOJ Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp With the objective ousting a sitting President
via a soft coup.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath at Large George Bush Jr. instituted the Criminal Surveillance infrastructure.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large Barack Obama expanded it exponentially.
However, Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths Obama, Clinton, their minions Brennan & Clapper along with
GCHQ used the intelligence apparatus to go after their political enemies.
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
" House Republicans are demanding to know why Justice Department officials entered into a
pair of "side agreement" with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson -- two of Hillary Clinton's
top former aides who went on to become her personal attorneys during the FBI's email
investigation -- that allowed law enforcement agents to destroy their laptops after searching
their hard drives for evidence. "
In a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General
Loretta Lynch on Monday, Goodlatte questioned why the destruction of the laptops used to sort
Clinton's emails was included in immunity deals that already protected Mills and Samuelson
from prosecution based on the records recovered from their computers.
it shoudl be apparent that female libtard socialist demoNrat lawyers think that they can
gain immunity from any FBI probe - dildo shaped or otherwise.
Jesus Christ. You Trumptard circus clowns just won't give up.
Go on, indulge me. Tell who and when these plotters are going to prison?
The comedy value listening to you retards giving so many wrong predictions is worth
reading ZH, just by itself.
Obummer, Killary et al are never going to see judgment. Never. Stop the fucking delusions
and projection. It's gone past being funny, worthy of ridicule. It's becoming obsessive to
the point of sounding foolish.
The big players won't go down. I do suspect that Strzok just may be indicted for
conspiracy. Could even rise a little higher. There's almost no doubt that the Obama "legacy"
will definitely get a good shellacking.
I agree we are at war with a 5th column. This much as been clear since 1913 and I would
argue going back before the Napoleonic wars.
The problem as is usually in these dire times is the chronic inability for so many people
to identify the real enemy.
Cunt's like Obummer are merely conduits and facilitators for the 5th column to work
through.
My anger is way past Obummer and Trump. These cunts have senior managers they report to.
It is the rooting out of that upper management and above that needs to take place.
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the
election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific
statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security
information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's
violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's
government email correspondence. In 2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the
request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account,
while reviewing documents for the Benghazi investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's
lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence stored on
her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for
State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an
insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would
never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all
established security and record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and
stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an
understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
"... I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded" with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected. ..."
"... Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart. ..."
"... Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy. ..."
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic
is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and
keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart.
Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We
are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a
left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and
those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy.
Don't fall for the left or right fight. We all have much more in
common than that which might set us apart.
It is chaos they want. In order to reset things under a new
order.
Centralization is the real issue and problem. Centralized
organizations are fragile and easy to co-opt. Distributed systems
are very difficult to take over. The U.S. constitution was
originally set up as a distributed system of systems with each
contributing to the larger system as a whole. The system as a
whole was only supposed to serve those that were part of the
system, not directing them. However it no longer functions in
this manner as the Federal system has long since been co-oped and
has taken over via. a command control / director function of the
whole. Originally it was set up to be only a check in the balance
of the whole feedback loop system, and a small but important one
at that. The Federal entity was originally set up only to ensure
that each state followed the U.S. constitution that they agreed
upon. Each state in the U.S. still has it's own constitution.
Each state can still choose at any point to secede from the U.S.
if the people within that state choose to do so.
If you want to take something over, the most efficient way is
to centralize the power structure then co-opt the exec. functions.
The CIA has long since perfected the subversion tactics to do
just this.
It is not uncommon for secret societies to have higher orders
within those societies. The masonic order has served as a
template for many other secret societies to include most
college fraternities. Every mason is a member of the blue
lodge, but every mason is not a York Rite or Scottish Rite Shriner.
Within the CIA there may very well be another
organization that none of us have ever heard of that runs the
show. Like any other organization, it must have a mechanism
for pulling in new members to replace the elders when they die
off.
Are we going to get a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email?
Remember,
none of this would be happening without her private server and mishandled classified info.
Her candidacy should have been ended early on. The FBI's investigation seemed nonstandard to
say the least.
Much of what followed may be doubling down on and covering up earlier crimes.
p-brane
1 year ago
It
sounds like they are conversing with a computer generated voice program like Satnav. I keep expecting her to say
"OVERLOAD.... OVERLOAD... NEED TO REBOOT... MAKE A LEFT AT THE NEXT STREET... MAKE A RIGHT AT THE NEXT CORNER... and then a
bunch of smoke comes out of her ears and she shuts down...
51
Woyam Chny
1 year ago
Loretta Lynch dwells in the deepest part of the swamp where the water is most stagnant and foul!
149
Mylan Miller
1 year ago
This woman just makes her self look stupid, she cant even answer the simplest question. She is making her self
look real guilty or dumb! She didn't get the job for her intelligence she is there because she is a willing sheep.
"... This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really difficult concept for these people. ..."
"... The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the fall guy in the e-mail investigation. ..."
"... Peter Strozk is President of AFGRO, a CIA front National Security non profit Agency To Facilitate The Growth Of Rural Organizations, Afgro 410 Sugar Pine Drive, Pinehurst, NC 28374 NC 1986-06 $0 http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/VA/Agency-To-Facilitate-The-Growth-Of-Rural-Organizations.html#similarList_a ..."
"... How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there. ..."
"... I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter! ..."
"... "The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview." ..."
What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of
Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.
Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302's would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those
questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.
According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because
there are "very INFLAMMATORY things" within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will "absolutely
inflame" them.
Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going
to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:
"I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves."
"Jim" is likely James Baker , the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey .
"Trish" is likely Trisha Beth Anderson , Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder,
from Eric Holder's law firm.]
"Dave" and "Mike" currently remain unknown.
So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both
aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton's questions and answers.
Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it
was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold "inflammatory" Clinton investigation
evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.
... ... ...
Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: "because they weren't relevant
to understanding the focus of the investigation". However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need
to look at the wording of
their public release which accompanied the material:
Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning
allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.
(
link )
They felt obligated only to release information about "classified" or "improperly stored or transmitted" information. That's a
rather disingenuous investigation.
There's no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use
of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it
was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.
We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate
effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage. There was no investigative intent
to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.
If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,
the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However,
the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld
something, likely "inflammatory", per FBI Agent Strzok. FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent
to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support
their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.
Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa
Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from
congress and the American people.
Being briefed on how to handle classified material
How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
How to select a target for a drone strike
How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry
Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
Getting guidance from state on email policy
Who had access to her Blackberry account
The process for deleting her emails
Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
Using an iPad mini
An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
Jacob Sullivan using personal email
State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
Being read out of her clearance
Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.
Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the
Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department "related to the retention of federal records or
the handling of classified information."
Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs -- the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence -- but
could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information. Additional discoveries from September 2016:
DISCOVERY ONE : Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive "A Few Weeks After The New York Times Disclosed" The
Private Server. Viser Tweet: "A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox
was deleted." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TWO : Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not "Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels."
Seitz-Wald Tweet: "Clinton said she didn't know what (c) mark meant, didn't pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY THREE : "There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn't Turn Over To The State Inspector General."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FOUR : As Secretary Of State Clinton "Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads" With Her Private Email. Viser Tweet:
"Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FIVE : Clinton's Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: 'FBI found
13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton's 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn't locate the devices" (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SIX : "The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SEVEN : Clinton's Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky
Tweet: "In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail
address to help" ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY EIGHT : Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought "She Didn't Need Them Anymore." Cilizza Tweet: 'Clinton
told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn't need them anymore not to avoid FOIA"(
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY NINE : Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton's iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: "The FBI found that someone was trying
to hack into Hillary Clinton's iCloud account. They were unsuccessful." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TEN : "Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
BONUS DISCOVERY : "The Phrase 'Could Not Recall' Or 'Did Not Recall' Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview
Transcript." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
Sundance broke the case. This is it. They FORMED the response to hide ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE HIDDEN. And they didn't just wheedle
around the edge of responsiveness (which is utterly repellent but "legal") – they actually over-specified their response (a form
of weaponized bullsh*tting) to NOT RETURN RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS.
This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact
properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs
to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really
difficult concept for these people.
The Clinton email investigation in my mind is far more important than even the Foundation because it ties it right back to BHO
and the 20 emails he has held onto because he claimed Executive Privilege. The fact that his POS Library will not have any paper
archives tells me they cannot ever have them seen by the public. The problem for both POS is that the case has been reopened with
a review occurring by the current head of the DOJ and FBI and if any charges are brought forward, Barry's Executive Privilege
goes out the window. Love the fact Don Jr. is pushing it!
"Wow. This is all so evil and corrupt. I am afraid that normal people who have not been following this closely as we all have
will just not believe it because it is so so bad."
__________________
They won't have a choice, it will be a paradigm-shifting event (like DJT winning the election was).
They will not be able to 'avoid' the 'reality' because that reality will impact and influence everything going forward. The
only way to remain in denial will be to hide on an island, like a Japanese soldier from WWII apparently did for quite a while
after the war ended.
Very, very few people will be able to take that route
For those who desperately don't want to believe the plain truth about these horrifically evil people they have looked up to
for so long, it may seem like the therapy treatment in A Clockwork Orange (sans Ludwig Von Bethoven's Ninth symphony),
but believe it they will!
This is exactly right. And this is just the FBI. We also know the State Department was corrupt and intertwined in protecting Clinton
and the assets of the Clinton Foundation. These employees are repugnant, and so are the media who covered for all of this mess.
Maybe, though, this is now breaking through -- between the online diligence of Sundance, WikiLeaks, the never-give-up heroes
at Judicial Watch, President Trump and his Cabinet, and every patriotic commenter/blogger/reporter, certain folks in Congress
now seem to be getting this message.
HRC is clearly not as ignorant as her I-don't-remember responses indicate. She knew nearly everything that needed to be destroyed,
and she was clearly able to remember a comprehensive attorney provided list of items not to remember during her interview.
I just realized something today. We see the bizarre hypocrisy in the CIC Forum meltdown that Hillary had, where Matt Lauer
says "So judgment is key." and Hillary responds "Temperament and judgment." – POINTEDLY – but THEN she goes into a jaw-dropping
rant about Lauer behind the scenes, even calling Donna Brazile a "buffalo". The absolute opposite of a "good" temperament.
However, that hypocrisy is FULLY intended. She is FIXING stuff with lies. It's what she does. Do what she wants, toward a hidden
goal, and fix it with lies.
She is NOT ignorant – EVEN of her own faults, flaws, and dangers. She KNOWS she is everything she accuses Trump of falsely.
Think how evil that is. It is EYES WIDE OPEN evil. Not delusional. She knows exactly what she's doing.
Cookstoves again, but this revelation is interesting. Cookstoves initiative wasn't even launched yet! So, what was she up to in
Jakarta? "One former Diplomatic Security agent, for example, told FBI investigators that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded State
Department security protocols while she was secretary of state. The former agent alleged that Clinton would ride to foreign diplomatic
functions with top aide Huma Abedin, instead of the local ambassador, which the agent said violated normal procedure and embarrassed
and insulted the ambassadors.
The former agent also said that on an early 2009 trip to Jakarta, Indonesia, Clinton insisted on visiting a troubled area to
promote a clean-cookstoves initiative, despite a request from Diplomatic Security that the visit be scrapped for safety concerns.
The agent said Diplomatic Security officials thought the trip placed staff, security and even reporters in danger, all for a photo
opportunity "for her election campaign." https://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/17/fbi-pressured-to-change-classification-of-about-email/
But a case case can even be made for intent- strong enough it should have been brought before a grand jury. Hillary was told she
shouldn't have a classified blackberry like Obama, emails about just remove the headers, destroying emails, not following state
dept policy and procedures, having the maid go in the scif all sorts of evidence of intent.
The FBI narrowed the investigation such that the handling classified material was never investigated. That's a favorite trick
of investigators – narrow what is being investigated to particular issues.
Katica's stuff was the beginning of sunlight on what the FBI was intentionally missing, with "Stonetear". This showed that the
Clinton people were engaged in altering evidence, which is SUPPOSED to be a big deal. Then add ALL the likely culprits getting
immunity, but NOTHING that would be worth immunity coming out. The whole thing is a beautiful logic exercise in letting her off.
It's designed opaqueness. If they basically make it impossible for any straight line to make it through all their small wickets
of "allowed" evidence, in the end NOTHING GETS THROUGH.
The rules about "no public charges near an election" is clearly a weaponized fallacy. THAT must end. It's very, very obvious
how the subverting forces used that one. Again – they fight the sunlight. Darkness is their primary weapon.
Latest over on Yo Who is that state dept (and perhaps other) employees are in "career purgatory" in positions they aren't suited
for. I commented that is definitely an interesting way of putting it. Like Bruce, Nellie, Peter (how's that HR working for you?).
I think you raised the idea in an earlier post that maybe these two were not having an affair. Maybe, maybe not. But, thinking
about these I suspect some of these on Strozk. He knew this was an FBI phone and these would be archived. These messages were part
of his insurance policy. I suspect he planted information in various spots implicating higher ups. Why else would he send a text
like this. If he was having an affair, why wouldn't he just tell Lisa Page this when they get together. Digging in to this text alone
develops a trail to very specific information and actions. He is saying they intentionally withheld information, establishing intent
for the parties involved.
The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the
fall guy in the e-mail investigation. If trump wins, he knows that all the info about how they manipulated the e-mail investigation
is going to come out. I dont know if this insurance policy was just a set of passive crumbs, or involved the active use of the dossier.
The dossier could just be the leverage used against trump to get him to overlook all the illegal surveillance and drop everything.
Interesting. Even if he just did it subconsciously, I think you're right. If Hillary wins, the "inflammatory" text doesn't matter.
If Trump wins, it shows "redeeming consciousness of guilt", where he is essentially proving it wasn't his idea.
That's why I keep going back to this being the possible reason they are still on the payroll. The government white hats
have much more leverage over current employees than they do over former employees.
Niagra Frontier: But Page and Strzok (why couldn't his name be Smith so I don't have to keep looking it up) .would know
that it is easier to control them if they stay employed and would want out unless they were given something, immunity,
perhaps. Right? As far as covering your a.. in the emails, absolutely. Most white collar career people know how to cover
themselves in emails and especially lawyers-those in the public arena and in politics. It's a given.
Last Night if I read you right you were picking up on something I think you described it as the Texts almost having a Psy-Ops
feel to it (please correct me if i misinterpret). Perhaps No Ones premise is what you were picking up on the bread crumb feel
of it.
One other possibility that plays in to that theory is Strzok reassuring Page that no one can get the text messages, thereby
giving the breadcrumbs more value.
Another possibility since I believe we have only seen her listed as outbox is that he took defensive measures and she did
not or screwed it up
I hope for once the Clinton "patsies" 1. remain alive and 2. roll over on the Queen.
Seth Richards deserved better, but should have also known better than to work for the Clinton Cartel.
Thank you. I'm glad I saw your comment. I thought the style and wording of Strozk's text is unnatural, as if he's deliberately
leaving clues/evidence or, as you said, cya.
I' m wondering why only the texts between Deep Strozk and Page are being released. What triggered that investigation into them
in the first place? You don't blindly look at FBI agents phones.
"FISA" is a JOKE employed to pacify the sheeples. All that is needed is access to a NSA "inquiry" terminal. Contractors, like
Snowden, and Feral Gov. employees can then retrieve any digital data ever transmitted by whatever mean on anyone, no warrant,
no Fisa, no nothing. Over 100,000 people have this access. Welcome to the USSA, Comrades. ( No disrespect to Russia intended)
Here's a snippet from the text messages that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Strzok was instructed by Bill to send 2 of his best
agents to work on the Hillary/email investigation. Strozk is worried that the DOJ will have more power and that no one will be there
to guide the investigation in a desired direction. He doesn't like the idea of Laufman (DOJ) "inserting himself" into the investigation.
He tells Page that "..he [BillPreistap?] didn't mean "best" in terms of agents "but what the best outcome" will be.
To me, Strozk
is saying here that Bill Priestap wanted Strzok to work toward the exoneration of HRC. To do this, Strzok thinks he needs to be there,
too, either as one of the two agents or alongside the 2 agents representing the FBI. But that would mean 3 agents, instead of the
usual 2. Page says that they shouldn't go full bore and tells Strzok to insist on having only 2 agents.
She then reminds him that
a future President HRC won't remember or care which side was more heavily stacked. In other words, all that mattered to any of these
people-including HRC -- was bringing a desired outcome.
From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure that HRC skated.
I think someone offered him some kind of future reward -- probably a career promotion on top of the promotion/position his wife received
at SEC.
He expressed a desire to Page to receive credit and recognition for various things. While discussing the option of joining
Mueller's team, he expressed dismay that he wouldn't be receiving any promotions from "Dad" -- whoever that is/was.
In other words, there
was nothing in it for HIM and besides, there was "no there, there." In 2016, he knew his superiors (Priestap, McCabe, and probably
Comey) also wanted to exonerate Clinton.
He was frustrated because they weren't letting him in on their decisions and yet they expected
him to do the dirty work behind the scenes. He knew as early as February 2016 that he was the one who stood to lose the most if their
shenanigans didn't work out-if HRC wasn't exonerated. But it didn't stop with her exoneration because in order to claim his (or their)
promised reward and keep their corruption hidden, they then had to make sure she won the election.
They had to destroy Donald Trump.
When that didn't work, they used their insurance policy (the dossier). The Russia investigation and Sessions' recusal has provided
cover and bought them time to destroy evidence, etc. I am encouraged by the fact that neither of them were enthusiastic about working
for Mueller. It implies that Mueller might not be a black hat. So far, nothing in the texts tells me that Strzok and Page considered
Mueller to be a member of "their team."
The fate and direction of our whole country was subjected to the selfish goals of a few unelected, ambitious bureaucrats. That's
just scary. It was God's hand that brought the election of POTUS Trump in spite of all of their tricks.
I hope Peter Strzok is indicted and that he squeals to high heaven. He can be depended on to serve his own best interests -- in all
situations. That's why they chose him. They saw he was willing to do anything for power and prestige. And he would have gotten it,
too, if it hadn't been for those damn Trump supporters.
He's more like a key anchor point to a very large evil web. He was a precisely placed anchor long ago!!
He has always manipulated every situation or events, to what he wanted. He became a true narcissist that thought he was untouchable.
Texting openly for years with no issues.
Truthfilter said. "From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure
that HRC skated. "
IMO, the plan from the beginning was to keep this firewalled within the FBI, giving distance from DOJ (Lynch), and thus Obama.
Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the Hillary
exonerators.
From the start, I've opined that Strzok was Hillary's embed who had great intimidating influence over Priestap and Comey, both
of which seem to be regular career climbers rather than hot-to-trot pusshats or lackeys of the Clintons. I think that some posters
are reading the texts, but misreading Strzok's actual mentality.
I'm not convinced that Strzok is a driver, but it's an interesting angle, and I'll take that under consideration. I see him
more from my old role – a tool to be used. A tool with a will of its own, and a bit too much awareness, and thus a bit of a
danger.
I agree that they're trying to make it LOOK like DOJ isn't fixing it, but they are – we know.
I've seen how this works in my own end of the swamp – FAKE INDEPENDENCE. Basically create a group tasked with a choice where
the outcome is pre-determined, then pass off the result as even-handed, fair, open-minded, independent, etc. In those scenarios
the pattern of individuals and layers is the same – signal cooperation up and in to the core, but signal fairness, party line,
and fake independence downward and outward. Then rig the process in every way you can, using individuals who have LEARNED and
been TRAINED to play the game.
I agree that Strzok is probably a Canklebot, but the place is so highly politicized, that real and fake political leanings
are hard to tell apart. He will also signal differently to different people – maze of mirrors.
I think the bottom line is that they all have their agendas, they all "feel" their independence, but it is the masterful
rigging of social processes which insures the outcome. They are FISH IN A NET. They see bits and pieces of the net and other
disturbances of their world, and act in predictable manners to insure an outcome.
One HAS to look BIG to see the operation. Small details matter to SPOT the bigger unseen things.
DOJ will look innocent outward, but there will be games to insure the outcome. SOME people will sense those games, some
will not, and the latter are fairly useless, to they tend to be task-fulfillers and not deciders. Some will signal the games
openly, but they're risky and better those who will "read between the lines" upward and take part in the games without the
need to speak of them, or who can speak in deflections which are mutually intelligible. CODE. There will be lots of autonomously
arranged code, just like AI creates (since there is no AI, basically – just "I").
This is why they have Trisha B. in the mix. She will be a sharpie who plays the games without a word and without even breaking
her smile, and will not get caught. You can bet that she is keeping DOJ in the loop on how this is going, and they are making
sure that the net leads to the desired catch.
Somebody has to be keeping Hillary aware, however – I think you're absolutely right about that. And I am betting on a woman.
At the bottom of Obama scandals is always racial loyalty and trust. At the bottom of Hillary scandals is sex loyalty and trust.
Just the way it is. Hillary pays men with money, women with power.
These two are my absolutely, positively "MUST HAVES" in terms of perp walks/prison sentences. #1 and #2, respectively,
on my list of people I want to see publicly humiliated and wearing orange jumpsuits.
You KNOW they're controlling this. Holder was very, very artful in having TWO "can we talk?" minions running this show.
And the media KNEW how critical it was to get Crooked Loretta in power. The bigs at Chicago Tribune were the ones sitting
on the Loretta story and broke it to scoop Taitz (under surveillance, surely) when she found it. Then later they hid
the Chicago connections by saying it was USA Today that broke it. ALL those little lies point right back to the truth.
Rigging the AG has been the most masterful yet ESSENTIAL things the other side has done – the greatest flaw in our governmental
system, and the one the bads go for EVERY TIME. But they also know how to weaponize it against the goods, as they did
with Nixon. Br'er Sessions was BRILLIANT to recuse. He spotted the GREATER outside game they were playing. Not recusing
would lead to a Watergate. Now THEY'RE holding the Watergate.
"Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the
Hillary exonerators. "
This article on hildabeast in Sept /16 indicates the opposite, the DOJ set the tone of the investigation. The FBI followed
them off the cliff .. Zero is the maestro.
What I meant was that the top dogs in the DOJ were corrupt, but that Strzok was not confident about the cooperation of the
layers below them.
Read my post again. My assumption is that the Lynch was evil, but that the FBI had to guarantee that Lynch was walled
off from any further investigation. Thus, Comey's explanation about having the buck stop in his shop.
Strzok changed the language that Comey originally had, however. That reflects on the relative mindsets and influence
they had in this mind-blowing scandal.
FOX is beginning to sound like they doing some protection work and yeah that text didn't really mean that kinda stuff. We are watching
the Gowdy principle beginning at the only media that has covered any of this. Then again Lachlan Murdoch takes over ..
The implications here are staggering. It means these people completely misled Congress, quite possibly for YEARS. There was
no oversight. And it got so bad, they actually neutered the OIG. So THAT means all the documents – all the redactions – all
the stuff Congress got – it can't be trusted. Anything turned over by either the Clinton or Obama administrations is potentially
BOGUS and/or INCOMPLETE.
It is ONLY because we have gotten the "Stupid Party" FULLY in control of both the White House (with competent anti-Establishment
leadership) and Congress, that we can now see how much bamboozling went on.
Now you know why the smirking Sally Yates spewed out 58 PAGES on why her division had NO oversight from anyone. An entity
unto themselves -- I want to see her and Farkas in dirty orange jumpsuits and shower sandals -- -
All of the criminals are still in positions to remove evidence. I would like to think Wray and Sessions have a handle on everything
but i will believe it when i see it. Strzok would have been fired on the spot at any job. Surely government employees can be fired
for less than making a non politically correct comment.
Even with Sessions and Wray in charge Congress is still having a hard time getting documents from the them. Why is that? Im frustrated
about it and im watching cable news. Makes it worse.
Wray and Sessions (swamp dwellers for most of their careers) are in complete denial about the rampant corruption in their organizations.
This denial is paralyzing them. Sessions yesterday said he'd do everything possible to eliminate the bias in DOJ. Bias Jeff,
seriously? How about the criminality? He just doesn't get it.
Yes. I read this morning that the FBI still has Obama's guy in charge of handling FOIA's. No wonder the FBI is still stonewalling.
I've been on the fence about Wray, but that news pops the black hat on him for me. Maybe future events will have me swapping
it out for a white hat, but I can only judge the evidence I can see.
Do you know where you found that? We were researching a PDF folder the other night that was found in an FBI site. It was
a search for Trump. They were mostly compiled within the time frame that Rogers had announced the shenanigans to the FISC
and when Nellie Ohr got her HAM radio.
I still wonder if these played cover for legal FOIA's but illegal searches?
I believe you are wrong. All critical evidence was already obtained by the OIG investigations. That's why the "missing" texts
were "found" so quickly. They live in a padded room now.
He is also a lawyer who once had his own law firm working with defendants.
"Just prior to re-joining the Justice Department, Laufman operated his own white collar defense law firm and was a
partner at the New York City-based law firm, Kelley Drye."
Why would Strzok outline his and others criminal activity in texts to Lisa Page? Why would he write into a permanent record such
self-incriminating evidence? Is he stupid? This makes no sense to me.
You need to read Sundance more. This is a staged roll out of information leading up to the IG report. With each leak, bad guys
respond and move revealing even more. We need to be patient which is hard to say as I am one of CTH's resident pessimists.
We will get there.
Plus we don't want to step all over PT's big speech.
I am not trying to keep up anymore. The U.S.Gov't is corrupt from top to bottom. Line the 100,000 or so Obama appointees and shoot
them all yesterday. This proves that elections do not matter. If any one here thinks that Sundance will change the way the criminals
do business then you are sadly mistaken. There will never be a trial for anyone above PFC or Cpl.
Peter Strzok is probably being paid at least $164,200.00 + while assigned to HR. What is he doing to earn this? Reporting to the
office daily? Sweeping the floor? What could he be trusted to do? The list must be really short.
Classified documents apparently can be declassified by Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden .. Or subcontractors
with names like Rainbow Sparkles, Sunshine Crackers.
DNC emails can be hacked by ???? and published by Julian Assange. The public reads them only if they are stolen by unknown(s)
and released on the Internet. All murky and elusive without details again. But hey, at least we got to read them!
The classified documents by Obama on his PDB that were sent to 30 people and then shared with the press. We can't see them
..Because, muh CLASSIFIED, unless they are stolen by ?????(someone or something) and distributed by whatever means happen to
be available
Yet, WE, the American people have to beg to see a memorandum written by a Congressman ..because of the sensitivity of the
matter ..classified ..mumble, mumble, mumble.
The American people (the ones that pick up the tab) must go thru several processes (because CLASSIFIED) and years of waiting,
just to be allowed to see the sh*t these morons have pulled.
Due to "the sensitivity of the matter" appears to be subjective, eh?
The memo will eventually come out. It served a purpose to say we have this memo that reveals all. You know how bad the info
is because only a handful of dems actually went to read it. They need deniability.
How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled
at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there.
Nixon resigned because of an attempt to cover up something he didn't command or know about.
Hillary has been corrupt since '70. She's been doing and covering up since '70. The term "arkancide" was coined to describe
what happens to people who cross the Clintons.
In a fair world, Nixon would have not resigned and Hillary would have fried in an electric chair for the death of Vince
Foster.
Strzok: "I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that play out as they talk amongst themselves."
________________
I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide
themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter!
Is Peter purposefully fingering all around him that have involvement, leading up to Barry? This is a strange example of an
office relationship. More like business passion, planned.
"The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given
as well as who was present during the interview."
___________________
We have had tape recorders for what, nearly a hundred years now?
And we have had commercial videotape recorders for nearly 60 years (since 1959).
So what is the point of a "302", except for the FIB to misrepresent, to their own benefit, what transpired in an interview
with a suspect?
Important
to forward Sundance's work product within your own circle of influence, along with all other forums in which you're tuned in.
Grow new branches and spread the fruit of CTH labors.
DETESTATION: Obama, Jarrett, Brennan -- pure evil and the masterminds of spying on their opponents. From the outside, Hillary
had a parallel operation going in concert. All of them satanic without a shred of morals whatsoever.
HATRED: Lynch for being a willing tool and knowledgable about most of it. McCabe, a lowlife bribe taker. Strzok, one that
didn't need bribes to fix every Hillary problem that arose; was quite willing to let a private outfit call the shots on the
hacks, and had his finger in everything else. Page was his eager co-conspirator and also a pusshat cultist who couldn't wait
for the glass-ceiling to break. Fie on all of them.
DISGUST: Comey and Priestap. Ultimate civil service careerists, wormy or weaselly enough to drift with whichever the political
winds blew. Deferred to the blacker of the black hats, even though their instincts about Hillary's criminality had a solid
legal basis. In the end, they caved and groveled for the benefit of their own bureaucratic futures. Not that bright, either.
"Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson,
Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview-
from congress and the American people."
_____________________
I'm beginning to suspect that maybe these people aren't exactly on the up-and-up
"Since Thursday night we've been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in
one of the most recently released text messages."
IMO the inflammatory thing that they weren't releasing on September 2, 2016 I think comes down to what was released in the
9/23/2016 release (the Huma Abedin interview the Obama pseudonym) where Abedin was shown the June 28, 2012 email from the pseudonymous
sender. Hilary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg on June 28, 2012.
How secure was that email chain? Were the blackberries left on the plane? That kind of thing. Even though it seems Abedin
couldn't figure out the pseudonymous sender was based on the content, I'm sure those with intelligence backgrounds could based
on content of the "Re: Congratulations" if the devices weren't secure.
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He
appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches
Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.
Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't
believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's
2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to
information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier
commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that
the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges
even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant
to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
So much for the director of CIA personal email security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something about it".' ..."
A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military
reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire
home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts
lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gamble, who founded the pro-Palestinian group 'Crackas With Attitude', taunted the security
service on Twitter about his successes.
During the attacks, which spanned from June 2015 to February 2016, he made hoax calls to Mr
Brennan's family home and took control of his wife's iPad.
His other targets included former deputy director of the FBI Mark Giuliano, secretary of
Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under
Obama.
He used the phone numbers he obtained to call and taunt his victims and their families, and
take control of their devices.
Gamble, who is autistic, boasted about targeting Mr Clapper's email account and said:
'That's where the juicy s*** is'.
He also pretended to be Mr Clapper to phone communications company Verizon and set up
call-forwarding to divert calls to the Free Palestine movement.
Gamble used Clapper's email to message other officials.
While speaking to an accomplice, he said: 'This email of Clapper's is very useful to fool
these r****d into thinking I'm him. I can't wait lmao [sic].'
He also boasted about carrying out 'the best breach ever' after accessing an FBI database to
get the names of 1,000 staff, including the officer responsible for the controversial shooting
of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama.
Gamble made a hoax call to Massachusetts police, resulting in armed officers being sent to
the aide's family home.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
+3
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
In the days before his arrest Gamble accessed the Department of Justice network using
compromised details he gained from a former employee.
He gathered documents and information relating to offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon
and details of more than 9,000 DHA officers and 20,000 FBI members of staff.
These details were posted online with the messages 'This is Free Palestine' and 'Long live
Palestine.'
The Department of Homeland Security spent 40,000 dollars to resolve the problem and suffered
'substantial reputational damage', the court heard.
Gamble was arrested in February 2016 at his council home in Coalville, near Leicester, at
the request of the FBI after he hacked into the Department of Justice network.
Last October, Gamble, of Linford Crescent, Coalville, pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown
Court to eight charges of performing a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to
computers and two charges of unauthorised modification of computer material.
Prosecutor John Lloyd-Jones QC told a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey: 'Kane Gamble
gained access to the communications accounts of some very high-ranking US intelligence
officials and government employees.
'The group incorrectly have been referred to as hackers. The group in fact used something
known as social engineering, which involves socially manipulating people - call centres or help
desks - into performing acts or divulging confidential information.'
'The group frequently bragged on social media and subjected the victims to online harassment
and abuse.'
The court heard Gamble 'felt particularly strongly' about US backed Israeli violence on
Palestinians, the shooting of black people by US police, racist violence by the KKK and the
bombing of civilians in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave described Gamble's activity as 'torture in the general sense - he got
these people in control and played with them to make their lives difficult'.
Gamble was allowed to sit next to his mother behind his barrister rather than the dock when
he appeared at the Old Bailey dressed in a dark blue coat.
Gamble also used an anonymous Twitter profile to talk to journalists.
Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more
annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something
about it".'
He is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey at a later date.
Pargolfer, Billericay, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Does this not show, that the higher up you are the more you think you are too important to
be hacked? If a 15 year old could do this, how safe is American security? I think you had
better hire him.
oscartheone, London, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
In fact what he actually did was to gain access to the CIA directors hotmail account and
ex po se d the fact the director of the CIA was using hotmail to email top secret documents.
The travesty being it should be the director of the CIA on trial, not Gamble
steviewunda, Warrington, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Some state he should be given a job, but then others would do outrageous things to put on
their CV for a job in intelligence. We can't be seen to encourage this despicable behaviour,
for any reason.
Villain1874, Villain Park, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
This will either ruin him or make him, if hes smart (which looks that way) he will use his
talents for the better if hes arrogant and tries this again U.S and U.K authorities will
destroy him before he knows whats hit him...
stc6, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A talented kid! We should put him to good use but keep him on a tight leash!
CallMeDave, Bury, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
And right this minute the CIA are trying to link him to Russia.
Del, AEglesburgh, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A lot of suggestions here to employ him. Yes appears to be a clever chap and probably
could do a good job, but he has acted in a criminal manner with intent to cause harm. He's
done this from his house, what damage could he do if employed by a Gov't agency? Temptation
would be too great.
erict, ipswich, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Well this goes to show intelligent the US homeland security the NSA and the FBI are I'am
surprised the haven't put sanction's on Liestershire Iexpect those who work at HCHQ are
laughing their head's off,
Bad new for "Crooked" Hillary and her sidekick Huma Abedin, as it appears that the
Department of Justice has reopened the investigation into Clinton's use of a private
server.
This follows the release of new evidence showing that Abedin mishandled classified
information.
Fox News' Tucker Carlson details how Abedin could be in legal trouble as Judicial Watch
reveals at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State
Department in the Hillary Clinton email probe were found on estranged pedophile husband Anthony
Weiner's laptop.
Huma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government
systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before
every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails
released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.
Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure
personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with
high-level correspondence in Clinton's State Department was impacted by one or more of a series
of breaches -- at least one of which was perpetrated by a "state-sponsored actor."
... ... ...
A separate hack in 2013 compromised three billion accounts across multiple
Yahoo properties, and the culprit is still unclear. "All Yahoo user accounts were affected by
the August 2013 theft," the company said in a statement.
Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff,
regularly forwarded work emails to her personal [email protected] address. "She would
use these accounts if her (State) account was down or if she needed to print an email or
document. Abedin further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she
routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print," an FBI
report says.
Abedin sent
passwords for her government laptop to her Yahoo account on Aug. 24, 2009, an email
released by the State Department in September 2017 shows.
Long-time Clinton confidante Sid
Blumenthal sent Clinton an email in July 2009 with the subject line: "Important. Not for
circulation.
You only . Sid." The message began "CONFIDENTIAL Re: Moscow Summit." Abedin forwarded the
email to her Yahoo address, potentially making it visible to hackers.
The email was deemed too sensitive to release to the public and was redacted before being
published pursuant to the Judicial Watch lawsuit. The released copy says "Classified by DAS/
A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 Class: Confidential." The unredacted portion reads: "I have heard
authoritatively from Bill Drozdiak, who is in Berlin . We should expect that the Germans and
Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc."
The three email accounts Abedin used were [email protected], [email protected], and
[email protected]. Though the emails released by the State Department partially redact
personal email addresses, the Yahoo emails are displayed as humamabedin[redacted].
Clinton
forwarded Abedin an email titled "Ambassadors" in March 2009 from Denis McDonough, who served
as foreign policy adviser to former President Barack Obama's campaign and later as White House
chief of staff. The email was heavily redacted before being released to the public.
Stuart Delery, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, sent a draft memo titled
"PA/PLO
Memo" in May 2009, seemingly referring to two Palestinian groups. The content was withheld
from the public with large letters spelling "Page Denied." Abedin forwarded it to her Yahoo
account.
Abedin routed sensitive information through Yahoo
multiple times, such as notes on a call with the U.N. secretary-general, according to
messages released under the lawsuit. Contemporaneous news reports documented the security
weaknesses of Yahoo while Abedin continued to use it. Credentials to 450,000 Yahoo accounts had
been posted online, a July 2012 CNN
article reported.
Five days later , Abedin forwarded sensitive information to her personal Yahoo email.
Abedin received an email "with the subject 'Re: your yahoo acct.' Abedin did not recall the
email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email
account had ever been compromised," on Aug. 16, 2010, an
FBI report says.
The FBI also asked her about sending other sensitive information to Yahoo. "Abedin was shown
an email dated October 4, 2009 with the subject 'Fwd: US interest in Pak Paper 10-04' which
Abedin received from [redacted] and then forwarded to her Yahoo email account . At the time of
the email, [redacted] worked for Richard Holbrooke who was the Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP). Abedin was unaware of the classification of the document and
stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of materials that she received,"
the report said.
Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
said the deep state was "very real."
Co-host Steve Doocy said, "Today is going to be a big day because Devin Nunes has subpoenaed
a bunch of records from the Department of Justice, We will find out exactly how many of them
show up and how many of them are blacked out. John Solomon has some good reporting over at The
Hill where they revealed yesterday that there is written evidence that apparently the FBI
believed that laws were broken regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal. And it looks like
that the IT guy covered things up when he -- even though they were subpoenaing the email
records -- he went and BleachBit it or whatever he did to it to destroy the hard drive."
Chaffetz said, "There was hammers, there was BleachBit. When you listen to James Comey back
in July of 2016, you really thought that she was actually to get indicted. But this is a closed
case. So there no reason why the Department of Justice should hold back any documents from the
Congress."
Doocy asked, "Well, then why are they?"
Chaffetz answered, "Well, the key you that you need to listen for today is, I guarantee you,
the Department of Justice will tout how many documents they are turning over. The question that
Trey Gowdy always asked, which is the right one, is what percentage of the documents? Because,
if you want 100 percent of the truth on a closed case, then turn over all the documents. But I
don't think they're going to do it. They've been asking for these documents under subpoena
since August, and they still haven't gotten them."
Doocy asked, "Is it the deep state?"
Chaffetz said, "It is the deep state. I was a little skeptical of what does that mean, but
I'm telling you, having lived through it, it is very real."
Looks like this became high stake game bewrrn various faction in Intelligence agencies and
the Department of Defense again... It is unclear why NSA hiding this emails -- they definitely
intercepted them all.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. ..."
"... A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made. ..."
"... "Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release. ..."
"... The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said. ..."
In what could be a major black eye for the deep state and yet another nail in the Clinton
legacy coffin,
The Hill's John Solomon reports that Republicans on key congressional committees say they
have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI's probe of Hillary
Clinton's email server.
"This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome," said Rep. Matt Gaetz
(R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the
holidays.
"Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn't held
accountable."
In what appears to be clear evidence confirming previous fears of favoritism and
prejudice within the FBI,
lawmakers and investigators told Solomon at The Hill that, for the first time,
investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence
that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted
classified information through her insecure private email server.
That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the "sheer volume" of classified
information that flowed through Clinton's insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as
an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case , the investigators said.
The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an
employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as
America's top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her
messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.
The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating
Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before
agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.
Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her
email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators
said.
Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door
briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the
investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington
headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible
criminality in their localities.
The top Democrat on the panel even acknowledged the FBI's handling of the case was unique,
but, of course, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) argued Republicans are politicizing their own
panel's work.
Rep. Gaetz said he has growing questions about the role the Obama Justice Department played
in the case.
"I think we have more questions than answers based on what we've learned," Gaetz said.
A House GOP lawmaker
told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted
after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information
about intent or possible destruction of evidence.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17
witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made.
"Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself
violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have
the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then
edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition
of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release.
The longtime Senate chairman went to the Senate floor before the holidays to raise another
concern: the FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton's email archives were permanently
deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional
committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a
call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called
BleachBit, Grassley said.
"You have a conference call with Secretary Clinton's attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on
that very same day her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call using
special BleachBit software," Grassley said. "The emails were State Department records under
subpoena by Congress.
"What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction?" Grassley asked. "According
to affidavits filed in federal court -- absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the
handling of classified information."
As The Hill notes, both parties are likely to learn more in the first quarter of 2018 when
the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release initial findings in what has
become a wide-ranging probe into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email case as well as
whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that
affected their work.
While the resistance tries to switch the narrative to Papadopoulos, and away from Page and
the Trump Dossier, it is becoming clearer and clearer where the real corruption was all the
time.
The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross
Negligence. It's why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &
Strzok changed the language in their report.
An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as "grossly negligent."
Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of private
emails. According to federal law, "gross negligence" in handling the nation's intelligence is
a felony.
"If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state's secrets and you
failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them,
you can be prosecuted," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during
an interview with FOX Business' Stuart Varney.
According to kimdotcom, and i think Snowden, all they have to do is open up a program
called xkeyscore and type in her email address. They will all be there.
Set aside for a moment that most/all of the suspect emails are on Weiner's infamous
laptop.
When Killary wrote those emails, she didn't write them to herself. She was writing them to
members of her staff and to others within the administration. The fact that she had her
private server wiped (with a cloth) doesn't mean they have been eliminated.
There's no need to ping the NSA. All of those emails are available on servers of her email
recipients, most of whom are government employees. Simply subpoena this evidence on State
Dept. servers, all of which are backed up. It's not that hard.
Weiner's laptop seems to be the only possible wildcard, or so it was thought. Otherwise,
we know HRC's people took steps to physically destroy all devices that may have possibly
recorded email traffic. I don't think we can expect any of the rest of HRC's people are as
reckless as Weiner. And none of those people would dare blackmail her or intentionally expose
her because they all know good and well that the Clintons kill their enemies.
I told you guys that federal investigations take time, and that you won't see any apparent
movement until they are ready to make arrests.
Happened to a friend of a friend. Ran a meat market that was fraudulently trading food
stamps for cash. One day they showed up to find the door had been kicked down and the place
had been raided. They got arrested. Turned out he had been under investigation for THREE
FUCKING YEARS. Had him so dead to rights he didn't bother with an attorney. Plead guilty and
they went easy on him.
"The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating
Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before
agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses."
Lock her up, fire Jeff Sessions, let justice be done tho' the heavens fall.
Hillary broke the law. Comey even knew it and said so until his "gross negligence"
(criminal charges warranted) was changed to "extremely careless" (no criminal charges
warranted) by Clinton supporter Strzok. So do something about it Red Team that controls both
Houses, the Presidency, and the DOJ.
One big fucking yawn. Yet another ZH story regarding Killary and FBI impropriety.
Killary is immune. Given the treasonous cunts residing on Capitol Hill and the
institutions tasked with bringing her to just being exposed as thoroughly corrupted.
I'd say drop the whining and make peace with this fact. Those at the top of the FBI are
also immune. The whole system is rotten.
those deleted emails (scrubbed, like, with a cloth) no doubt contaned details of
pornography/pedophilia, the wishes of the muslim brotherhood to pilfer tax payer money and
lump sum contributions to the CF/CGI in exchange for multiple repayments of US tax payer
funds via "executive orders" from Obama or DoS favors for a bunch of things.
dot.........dot.........dot
the clintons were running a racket at federal level - siphoning money to and from moslems
for arms/influence, coordinated by the activities of abedin and the awan brothers, protected
by obama's "equal opportunity" witches cabal of pink hat wearers, peple of color with lower
iq'spromoted way above their ability, capped off by concealing the activities of child sex
perverts on epsteins islands and weiners computers and the murders of people like Seth
Rich.
Most grow impatient with you sir. They do not consider that the entire Justice Dept and
FBI are stacked with what are called "our greatest legal minds" and "most highly experienced
investigators". Some of us understand that it takes a little time to build your case and
overcome such a deck stacked against you.
LOCK COMEY and McCabe and Peter STOKE?? What ever his name and OHR and Lisa Page and
CLINTON AND HUMA UP - along with Podesta brothers. Then add Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer -
the Canadian money men. ALL CORRUPT
Then go after Loretta Lynch and Susan Rice and LOCK them UP
Wow. FBI does a reverse autopsy, determining the cause of death prior to an investigation
of evidence. There ought to be one count of obstruction of justice for every missing email.
Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, espionage, treason, throw the book at it.
More and more evidence piles up. More and more statements from Republicans. Will there be
any charges? Will anything at all happen? No. And that, my friends, is what is actually baked
into the cake.
This article merely confirms what everybody already knew. Ok, so now it's time to turn the
tables and investigate all these bitchezz with interrogations under hot lights.
I'm positive Most realize the important thing is the continued delegitimization of the FBI
and Justice Department at the top and the obvious fact these are the exact people who started
the Russia collusion garbage. I don't care if Crooked,Huma,Comey.Lynch or the rest go to
jail, I do care that showing this blatant abuse of power is something many of us have wanted
to expose irrefutably once and for all. It goes on every day and every damn Way..Senator
Stevens of Alaska or Bundy ...every damn day
Benjamin Wittes, Comey's worshipful sycophant, wrote this back in May 2016 about candidate
Trump. The operation was already underway.
"The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of
Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States
government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to
the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government , not the most extraordinary
ones. . . .
"A prosecutor -- and by extension, a tyrant president who directs that prosecutor -- can
harass or target almost anyone, and he can often do so without violating any law. He doesn't
actually need to indict the person, though that can be fun. He needs only open an
investigation; that alone can be ruinous. The standards for doing so, criminal predication,
are not high. And the fabric of American federal law -- criminal and civil law alike -- is so
vast that a huge number of people and institutions of consequence are ripe for some sort of
meddling from authorities."
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
"... Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an apparent address belonging to Weiner. ..."
"... The message contained a list of talking points for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning. ..."
Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified
material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an
apparent address belonging to Weiner.
The message contained a list of talking points for
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of
Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by
then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning.
A
confidential document found on Anthony Weiner's laptop reveals that the United States
Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden expressed concerns in 2010 that WikiLeaks would release classified
US documents related to Sweden ahead of the September 19 Swedish election, tipping the vote
towards the Pirate Party. The subject of the cable reads " Wikileaks: The Pirate Party's White
Horse Into Sweden's Parliament? "
On June 29, 2010 a US diplomat met with three members of the Pirate Party - which is
described in the cable as a "mixture between communism and libertarianism," yet whose members
are "well-salaried professionals, independent from the party for income." Two of the "pirates,"
according to the report, were active in the "youth branch of the conservative party currently
leading government ."
The Embassy cable notes the " grim electoral outlook for Pirates " - as confirmed by a
Pirate party member interviewed by the US diplomat, "Unless WikiLeaks Saves the Day."
Two weeks after the cable was sent, an arrest warrant was issued for WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange on sexual assault allegations - which was dropped, then re-issued, then revoked
again by Swedish authorities in August 2015 when they dropped their case against him.
The emergence of this confidential document ( found on Anthony Weiner's laptop and sent
while his wife, Huma Abedin, was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff ),
is disturbing - as it potentially implicates the Obama administration in a conspiracy to
silence Julian Assange while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State - not to mention that it
could be the smoking gun in yet another clear case of mishandled information found on
imprisoned sexual deviant Anthony Weiner's laptop the FBI's
Peter Strzok and crew must have somehow overlooked.
A brief timeline of events:
On August 20, 2010, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange over a rape
allegation - two weeks after the US Embassy met with the Pirate party and had concerns over
Assange leaking US secrets. The net day, Swedish cancelled the warrant. "I don't think there
is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors,
Eva Finne. Swedish prosecutors did however continue to investigate a separate allegation of
molestation, though they felt it was not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
On September 1, 2010, Swedish Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, reopened the rape
investigation against Assange.
On November 18, 2010, Stockholm District Court approved a detention request for Mr.
Assange, who had traveled to London. Two days later, Swedish police issued an international
arrest warrant. On December 8, 2010, Assange is taken into British custody and taken to an
extradition hearing . Eight days later, Assange posts bail and walks free in London until May
30, 2012 when the UK Supreme Court rules that he should be extradited to Sweden.
August 16, 2012, Assange begins his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London - where he
has remained for over five years.
In February, 2016, a UN panel found Assange to be
detained unlawfully in the Ecuadorian embassy.
In May, 2017, Swedish authorities once again dropped their case against Julian Assange,
with his Swedish lawyer Per Samuelsson told Swedish media "It is a total victory for Julian
Assange," adding "He is free to leave the embassy whenever he wants."
Unfortunately, that's not going to be quite so easy for the time being - as Assange faces
immediate arrest by the UK for skipping bail in his extradition hearing. Moreover, in April of
this year, CNN and the Washington Post
simultaneously reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' DOJ has prepared criminal charges
against Assange over 2010 leaks of diplomatic cables and military documents.
While the DOJ seems intent on locking Assange up, the WikiLeaks founder has also received
tremendous support from certain members of congress.
As we
reported last week , Congressman Dana Rohrabacher travelled to London in August with
journalist Charles Johnson for a meeting with Assange, where Rohrabacher said the WikiLeaks
founder offered "firsthand" information proving that the Trump campaign did not collude with
Russia, and which would refute the Russian hacking theory .
Rohrabacher brought that message back to Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to propose a
deal. In exchange for a presidential pardon, Assange would share evidence that would refute the
Russian hacking theory by proving they weren't the source of the emails, according to the
WSJ .
However - when Trump was asked in late September about the Assange proposal, he responded
that he'd "never heard" of it , causing Rohrabacher to unleash on John Kelly, who he blamed for
blocking the proposal from reaching the President. Rohrabacher told the
Daily Caller :
"I think the president's answer indicates that there is a wall around him that is being
created by people who do not want to expose this fraud that there was collusion between our
intelligence community and the leaders of the Democratic Party," Rohrabacher told The Daily
Caller Tuesday in a phone interview.
" This would have to be a cooperative effort between his own staff and the leadership in
the intelligence communities to try to prevent the president from making the decision as to
whether or not he wants to take the steps necessary to expose this horrendous lie that was
shoved down the American people's throats so incredibly earlier this year," Rohrabacher
said.
Contributing to the notion of deep-state interference, CIA director Mike Pompeo referred to
WikiLeaks as a "
hostile intelligence service " in April, calling Julian Assange "a fraud, a coward hiding
behind a screen" for exposing information about democratic governments rather than
authoritarian regimes. This quite the ironic statement, considering Pompeo used leaked emails
from WikiLeaks as proof "the fix was in" against President Trump.
So - while the Swedish authorities have dropped their case against Assange, and the UN says
he's been unlawfully detailed - the UK insists on arresting Assange the moment he steps outside
the Ecuadorian embassy for jumping bail on the dropped charges, and the US Department of
Justice is reportedly prepared to slap criminal charges on Assange.
Perhaps the establishment is still a bit miffed that the "white wizard" showed the world
what's really underneath the pantsuit, which despite the constant rhetoric of the past year is
what ultimately cost Hillary - and so many of her charitable friends - the election.
How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."
"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."
"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."
"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."
"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."
"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."
"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."
"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."
"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."
As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what
prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the
Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.
Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the
Daily
Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified
at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.
The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab
Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was
declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted
prior to release by the State Department.
According to the
Daily
Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup
of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.
As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified
documents on his laptop .
A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu:
And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":
In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton
and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email
discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over
Israel's announced
changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.
One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?
Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion
from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo.
While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President
earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation
has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.
In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal
court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping
with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these
government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious
investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."
Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'
Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours
before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...
We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal
"because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another
boring day in Washington... Tags Politics
Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?
The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified
as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks.
Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that
laptop.
It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal
court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on
Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI,
I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.
"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!
The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one
would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using
civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to
enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.
Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.
Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI
works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?
I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.
I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear?
We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't
redacted entirely?
DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.
Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to
Andy and friends at the FBI.
I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice.
It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that
Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.
Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop
this year.
The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in
North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit
away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.
" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential
level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "
While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential
level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the
very lowest level of security classification.
One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with
such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media.
I suppose I was wrong.
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."
By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's
lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion
probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put
a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that
he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a
senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text
messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from
the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.
Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of
Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act
and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter
contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.
When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation,
learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his
team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is
still on the payroll.
After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about
his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.
Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton,
Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the
allegations against her.
Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton
wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the
softball interrogation a farce.
Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous
month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more
than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same
interview.
Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential
collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael
Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying
to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA
warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind
if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia
collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.
Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on
high-profile cases involving political figures.
A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is
investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial
to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton
case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his
edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable
political view of Clinton.
It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be
foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross
understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the
Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because
they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss.
They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption
coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue
and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until
he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the
flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only
be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of
his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted
to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also
seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary
Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.
The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter
is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the
records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is
reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election.
Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished,
giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and
the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than
anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily
metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.
At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band.
As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input
on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations.
Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly
negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified
information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email
account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely"
when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.
Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright
individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this
respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson
case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being
prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may
face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.
Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film,
Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting
president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but
slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement
duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.
If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom
he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were
investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the
premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of
Indiscretion.
Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt
leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they
should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied.
To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.
"... "The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the
agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the
FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately." ..."
"... This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of
the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by
July 2018. ..."
"... There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses
and potential targets preferential treatment. ..."
"... So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President,
the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted documents
that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday ..."
"... Get rid of all alphabet agencies. Judicial watch can replace the eff bee eye ..."
"... They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's to
talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it... ..."
"... I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot more
than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix!
..."
"... I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple of days
before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look stupid. ..."
After originally being told by the FBI there were no documents to produce in response to their July 2016 FOIA request, Judicial
Watch's Tom Fitton was subsequently told in October 2017 that the FBI had simply overlooked 30 pages worth of relevant docs... 30
pages which Fitton now says will mark the "beginning of the end" of the DOJ's "cover-up" when they're released this Thursday.
FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow.
@RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ.
Of course, Fitton expressed his frustration with the botched FOIA response back in October after describing the FBI as "out of
control" and saying it's " stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding
them in another lawsuit." Per
Judicial Watch :
"The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught
the agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers
about the FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately."
This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of
the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials
by July 2018.
There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses
and potential targets preferential treatment.
So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President,
the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted
documents that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday.
They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's
to talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it...
"Do you want 10yrs of ass pounding prison with a guy named Daisy we know or do you want to give up the goods we can prove you
have?"
...even Grand Inquisitor Mueller will buckle and sob like a pussyhat wearing feminist on inauguration day 2017.
Loyalty only goes as far as the last check with them and the money's running out ;-)
I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot
more than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in
Phoenix!
One wonders how the Clinton's found out about Lynch being there, as it certainly wasn't a coincidence.
I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple
of days before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look
stupid.
"... The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed
by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation,
which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving hundreds
of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally. ..."
"... The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running
investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton in
one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics. ..."
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary
Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier. ..."
"... The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own relationship
with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations. ..."
In September, Comey, - much like Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite
the existence of a Congressional subpoena - had his very own "oh shit" moment when a witness confirmed during Congressional testimony
that Comey started drafting his letter excusing Clinton months before the investigation was finished. Since then, the bureau has
decided to begin turning over all documents requested by Congress, including memos pertaining to the infamous 'Trump dossier' after
initially resisting a subpoena from the House Intel committee.
... ... ...
The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed
by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation,
which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving
hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally.
On Friday, Bloomberg
reported that in their quest to discover the the FBI Deputy Director may know, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee
threatened to subpoena McCabe next week unless he agrees to appear before their panel.
They intend on pressing McCabe on topics including his role in the FBI's investigation into former White House National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing the members' plans. Interest in McCabe goes beyond
Flynn, however, the official said.
McCabe's role in the Clinton probe is especially conflicted: last October,
the WSJ reported
that the political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary
Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of McCabe's wife, shortly before he helped oversee the FBI "investigation"
into Clinton's email use.
Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe's political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of
Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.
The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support
to Dr. McCabe's campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy
from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe's control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third
of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.
The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running
investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton
in one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary
Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier.
The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own
relationship with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations.
If Sessions appoints a special prosecutor for Uranium-1, on the basis that all that lovely yellow cake has left the country
for parts unknown, contravening guarantees made to Congress (the FBI informant hopefully this week is key), obviously there is
no link to Hillary that could affect Sessions recusal - because the MSM have been telling us ad infinitum there is nothing to
see there...
Sessions and his recusal are then out of the frame, and the SP can go down every fucking rabbit hole he chooses (same as Mueller
is doing). If, perchance, they lead him to the doors of the Clinton Foundation, or God forbid, the scroat herself, that is fuck
all to do with the AG.
In order to have zero influence in the control of the evidence from hereon in, McCabe and Rosenstein (and likely many of their
Obama placeholder deputies in the FBI and DoJ) need to be removed immediately.
The evidence is all on the Weiner laptop, and on all the Awan laptops and desktops. But they do have to actually look at them....
Looks like Sessions is being skunked and humiliated by the DoJ permanent staff who always adored Hillary and Obama, and still
do.
FBI officials declined to comment. "We don't have any information for you," spokeswoman Carol Cratty told The Hill.
That is not acceptable spokeswoman Carol Cratty. You are a servant to the people and answer to us! Now get your ass in gear
and bring out the information or you will also be charged with obstruction of justice.
Sessions is a spinless douche bag. He recused himself from Clinton fountion because he said something negative about the candidate
and it might hurt his objectivity? What a coward this guy is, he wants nothing to do with prosecuting Clinton. Fire this pussy
already Trump!!
My guess is TPTB are seeing their stories are becoming so fantastic and hard to believe they're straining their last tiny threads
of credulity so they're trying to placate with these batches of files.. The lovely and charming mrs. chunga likes to watch the
weather report in the morning. She normally has the discipline to not get too fired up about fake news because she's convinced
it's all fake but this AM she was livid.
The little fake news pinhead said Trump was fleeing the country because he was in grave danger of Mueller and the Russian collusion
business was closing in on him. He said the Uranium One thing had been "thouroughly debunked". No mention of Brazile. No mention
of Warren.
Then some tribe guy legal expert came on and said Sessions was again in Trump's dog house and any attempt to push him around
was a desperate diversion tactic and the "Murikan people want Mueller to continue without interference. LoL!
My theory is Comey re-opened the investigation when the Weiner laptop popped up. Then it was closed 8 days later after it had
positively been secured and everyone who'd seen it was sufficiently threatened and/or killed by federal black hats.
FBI Turns Over Hundreds Of Pages Of New Clinton Probe Documents
My response: IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!! What an absolute screwed up mess this whole CLINTON episode has become.
IF YOU WANT IT REALLY SCREWED UP, JUST LET THE MARXIST PROGRESS LIBERAL LAWYERS AND JUDGES GET INVOLVED.
AG Jeff Sessions really needs to step up to the bar here or GET THE HELL OUT!!!!
By the way, AG Sessions better make RICE, LOIS LERNER (IRS), HOLDER, LYNCH and OBAMA a key focus in the weeks ahead. These
people are corrupt to the core.
Yes I mean both of them. McAuliffe too. McAuliffe is the one who stood down the Virginia police and is responsible for all
the mayhem in Charlottesville.
Go to jail Terry you corrupt son of a b****. Terry was on the board of the Clinton Foundation.
And while we're at it there's Tim Kaine former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which apparently was bankrupt
enough for Hillary Clinton to take over with some of her ill-gotten gains to guarantee herself the Democratic nomination and steal
the nomination from Bernie Sanders. And we can see how corrupt the DNC is can't we?
So we can dump Kaine because he had to know about uranium one. He had to know about the Perkins Coie pissgate "dossier". He
is thick in this too.
Smashed hard drives, deleted emails, pleading the 5th, immunity deals. This is politics at the highest level. No one goes to
jail that is or was in a position of power and spotlight. It's a failure of government and a failure of justice. All it does is
what the left wants - divide and conquer.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES. I provided the links for your convenience.
HRC needs to immediately be apprehended, Arrested, Indicted, Enprisoned, Tried, Convicted & Executed.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary
Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or
shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and Repeatedly. This pattern indicates
a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal Prison awaiting Trail for Treason, Sedition, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
**Side Note**
Mueller, Comey, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Clapper, Brennan, Wasserman-Shultz are not immune from the above charges.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm
hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from
John Sipher a is
a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt
to defend Steele dossier in his
Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents
usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his
evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved
in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were
opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision
not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.
The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate
investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.
The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee
chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the
FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey
and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation
last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.
The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving
those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.
Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS,
the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia.
A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without
any legitimate purposes.
NEW YORK ! It seemed as if Anthony Weiner had hit rock bottom when he resigned from Congress
in 2011.
"Bye-bye, pervert!" one heckler shouted as the Democrat quit amid revelations that he had
sent graphic pictures of himself to women on social media. Time has shown his self-destructive
drama had only just begun.
Weiner, 53, is set to be sentenced Monday for sending obscene material to a 15-year-old girl
in a case that may have also have played a role in costing Hillary Clinton ! former boss of
Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin ! the presidential election.
Federal prosecutors have asked for a sentence of slightly more than two years behind bars
because of the seriousness of the crime, in which Weiner sent adult porn to the girl and got
her to take her clothes off for him on Skype.
"The defendant did far more than exchange typed words on a lifeless cellphone screen with a
faceless stranger," prosecutors wrote to the judge. "Transmitting obscenity to a minor to
induce her to engage in sexually explicit conduct by video chat and photo ! is far from mere
'sexting.'"
Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in
last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to
avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations
of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited
by both
computer analysts and
award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.
However,
newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the
Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog
group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton
Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S.
State Department.
In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations
to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were
cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake
Sullivan.
The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central
to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching
themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly
the Podesta emails , offered
ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential
treatment by the U.S. State Department.
"... However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding, "I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009." ..."
"... one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before. ..."
"... Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later. ..."
"... Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her "unclassified" emails. ..."
"... Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports. ..."
"... How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public? ..."
Mar 18, 2016
The documents
, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of
her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten "hooked" on her
Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department
security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.
That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton's main office space at Foggy Bottom
was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced "skiff") by
insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington,
D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical
penetration, that's where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct
classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.
But personal electronic devices!your cellphone, your Blackberry!can never be brought into a
SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence
agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld
device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy
service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance device!on you, the user!that also
happens to provide phone service and Internet access.
As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any
SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clinton and
her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms.
Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having
their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and
that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.
This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information
Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an
explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S.
government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the
classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.
The contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton!to her personal,
unclassified account!were based on highly sensitive NSA information.
IAD had recently created a special,
custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton
wanted one for herself. However, making the new president's personal Blackberry had been a
time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton
with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.
And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her
personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer
terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email
anytime she wanted to right from her desk.
But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she
did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary
Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point,
"We were politely told to shut up and color" by IAD,
explained the state security official.
The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story
remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the
kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima
donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from
the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer,
like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question,
given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a
government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding,
"I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009."
He's not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her
staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to!and why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal
laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a
head thanks to Team Clinton's gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.
As I
explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's
emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to
the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory
friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email
contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted
by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking
source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a
high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.
To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence,
termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had
enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got
hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified
email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.
NSA officials were appalled by the State Department's release of this email, since it bore
all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January when I reported this , I was
confident that Mr. Blumenthal's information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on
my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it
was NSA information with "at least 90 percent confidence."
Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8,
2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based
on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined
that Mr. Blumenthal's highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of
high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.
Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all
of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports
was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is
applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between
top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access
Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another
series of her "unclassified" emails.
Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal's
information came from their reports. "It's word-for-word, verbatim copying," one of them
explained. "In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report" that was classified
Top Secret / Special Intelligence.
How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there's no
firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA
reports!none of which he was supposed to have any access to!and pass the details of them to
Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special
Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on.
Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was
Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who
conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too,
had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA
reports.
There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were
up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his
lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting
is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another
question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly
detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department
see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?
These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and the FBI right now. All of
them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary
Clinton!and who gets elected our next president in November.
"... Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he had failed to disclose contacts with Russia. ..."
"... The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other Clinton emails were made public. ..."
"... Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups - who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails. ..."
"... Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death. Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday. ..."
"... Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium." ..."
"... The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around." ..."
"... Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight." ..."
A Republican donor and operative from Chicago's North Shore who said he had
tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's missing emails from Russian hackers killed himself in a
Minnesota hotel room days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his efforts, public
records show.
In a room at a Rochester hotel used almost exclusively by Mayo Clinic patients and
relatives, Peter W. Smith, 81, left a carefully prepared file of documents, which includes a
statement police called a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and a life
insurance policy was expiring.
Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal
about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal
also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn
briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he
had failed to disclose contacts with Russia.
At the time, the newspaper reported Smith's May 14 death came about 10 days after he granted
the interview. Mystery shrouded how and where he had died, but the lead reporter on the stories
said on a podcast he had no reason to believe the death was the result of foul play and that
Smith likely had died of natural causes.
However, the Chicago Tribune obtained a Minnesota state death record filed in Olmsted County
that says Smith committed suicide in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic at 1:17 p.m. on Sunday, May
14. He was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached. A medical
examiner's report gives the same account, without specifying the time, and a report from
Rochester police further details his suicide.
In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that "NO FOUL PLAY
WHATSOEVER" was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a
"RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017" and timing related "TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5
MILLION EXPIRING."
One of Smith's former employees told the Tribune he thought the elderly man had gone to the
famed clinic to be treated for a heart condition. Mayo spokeswoman Ginger Plumbo said Thursday
she could not confirm Smith had been a patient, citing medical privacy laws.
The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a
team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server
Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails
Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other
Clinton emails were made public.
Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by
Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official
duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He
also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups
- who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails.
Smith had a history of doing opposition research, the formal term for unflattering
information that political operatives dig up about rival candidates.
For years, Democratic President Bill Clinton was Smith's target. The wealthy businessman had
a hand in exposing the "Troopergate" allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life. And he
discussed financing a probe of a 1969 trip Bill Clinton had taken while in college to the
Soviet Union, according to Salon magazine.
Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people
associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI
chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller
spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death.
Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday.
Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the
cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with
helium."
Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson on Wednesday called his manner of death "unusual," but
a funeral home worker said he'd seen it before.
An employee with Rochester Cremation Services, the funeral home that responded to the hotel,
said he helped remove Smith's body from his room and recalled seeing a tank.
The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive
nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas
grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the
coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around."
"When I got there and saw the tank, I thought, 'I've seen this before,' and was able to put
two and two together," the employee said.
An autopsy was conducted, according to the death record. The Southern Minnesota Regional
Medical Examiner's Office declined a Tribune request for the autopsy report and released
limited information about Smith's death.
The Final Exit Network, a Florida-based nonprofit, provides information and support to
people who suffer from a terminal illness and want to kill themselves.
Fran Schindler, a volunteer with the group, noted that the best-selling book Final Exit,
written by Derek Humphry in 1991 and revised several times since, explains in detail the helium
gas method.
"Many people obtain that information from his book," Schindler said. "It's a method that has
been around for many years and is well known."
Smith's remains were cremated in Minnesota, the records said. He was married to Janet L.
Smith and had three children and three grandchildren, according to his obituary. Tribune calls
to family members were not returned.
His obituary
said Smith was involved in public affairs for more than 60 years and it heralded him as a
"quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically secure
world." Smith led private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments for
more than 40 years. Earlier, he worked with DigaComm, LLC, from 1997 to 2014 and as the
president of Peter W. Smith & Company, Inc. from 1975 to 1997. Prior to that, he was a
senior officer of Field Enterprises, Inc., a firm that owned the Chicago Sun-Times then and was
held by the Marshall Field family, his obituary said.
A private family memorial was planned, the obituary said. Friends posted online tributes to
Smith after his death. One was from his former employee, Jonathan Safron, 26, who lives in
Chicago's Loop and worked for Smith for about two years.
Safron, in an interview, said he was working for a tutoring firm when Smith became his
client. His job entailed teaching Smith how to use a MacBook, Safron said. At the time Smith
was living in a condominium atop the Four Seasons Hotel Chicago. Safron said Smith later
employed him at Corporate Venture Alliances, a private investment firm that Smith ran, first
out of the same condo and later from an office in the Hancock Building.
Safron, who said he had a low-level job with the Illinois Republican Party in 2014, said he
had no knowledge of Smith's bid to find hackers who could locate emails missing from Clinton's
service as secretary of state. In his online tribute to his former employer, he called Smith
the "best boss I could ever ask for ... a mentor, friend and model human being."
Safron said he worked part-time for Smith, putting in about 15 hours a week. But the two
grew close, often having lunch together at a favorite Smith spot: the Oak Tree Restaurant &
Bakery Chicago on North Michigan Ave. He called Smith a serious man who was "upbeat,"
"cosmopolitan" and "larger than life." He was aware Smith was in declining health, saying the
older man sometimes had difficulty breathing and told work colleagues he had heart problems.
Weeks before he took his life, he had become fatigued walking down about four or five flights
of stairs during a Hancock Building fire drill and later emailed Safron saying he was "dizzy,"
he said.
Smith's last will and testament, signed last Feb. 21, is seven pages long and on file in
Probate Court in Lake County. The will gives his wife his interest in their residential
property and his tangible personal property and says remaining assets should be placed into two
trusts.
He was born Feb. 23, 1936, in Portland, Maine, according to the death record.
His late father, Waldo Sterling Smith, was a manufacturer's representative for women's
apparel firms, representing them in department stores in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont,
according to the father's 2002 obituary. The elder Smith died at age 92 in St. Augustine, Fla.,
and his obit noted that he had been active in St. Johns County, Fla. Republican affairs and
with a local Methodist church
Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged
U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post
predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian
interference story will die of its own weight."
Skiba reported from Washington, Heinzmann reported from Rochester and Lighty from
Chicago. Lauren Rosenblatt of the Tribune Washington Bureau and Dan Moran of the Lake County
News-Sun contributed to this story.
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend
against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for
succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda.
I think that the problem is that Trump
is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced
by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may
not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary
is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders
from Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule
the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be
extremely suspect. Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the
early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda,
and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray,
not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in
that direction.
"When you have a former head of the FBI, a deeply respected person"
That's funny. Can you spell 9/11. He served as President George W. Bush's deputy attorney general
(D.A.G.), in the aftermath of 9/11. So he is the the one who got Saudi officials off the hook.
Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into
9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers.
He says the al-Hijjis' "urgent" pre-9/11 exit suggests "someone may have tipped them off" about
the coming attacks.
Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify
28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President
George W. Bush.
"The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger
at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier," he said, adding, "I am speaking of the kingdom,"
or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.
Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that
directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles
in the attacks - which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of
war by a foreign government.
– From the New York Post article: How the FBI is Whitewashing the Saudi Connection to 9/11
Was Comey's "second thought" announcement after Hillary email investigation a naked political
gambit?
And what about his very strange announcement about Wiener computer containing Hillary classified
emails?
"... It had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. You can argue about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to argue about staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control, while in government. ..."
"... All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with corruption and clique infighting inside major departments (Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left the office). ..."
I disagree. It
had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary
and her close circle. You can argue about the level of
criminality, but it is impossible to argue about
staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom
server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary
for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting
Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control,
while in government.
Attempts to suppress investigation now also can be
proved. Much better then Trump collision with Russians.
All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama
administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with
corruption and clique infighting inside major departments
(Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting
immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and
then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left
the office).
If this was a big nothing, then dementia is not a
problem :-)
"I disagree. It had shown staggering incompetence and
arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. yo can argue
about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to
argue about staggering level of incompetence and
arrogance."
OK, Clinton was not 1000% perfect.
So, that justifies giving the job to Trump because 5%
competency from a man is better than a 98% competent
woman?
Only men are allowed to be both arrogant and
incompetent!
The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its
reckless actions.
Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of
mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their
ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
Notable quotes:
"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the
critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront
of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential
POTUS.
This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in
the future.
The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's
doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:
"... Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media: ..."
"... Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it." ..."
"... Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said. ..."
One thing is for sure, Comey's testimony was anything but boring. 1) Trump was not under investigation by the FBI
When questioned by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Comey answered that President Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI.
It was also revealed that congressional leaders had previously been briefed on this fact.
This morning Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joined
Breitbart News Daily and predicted this fact. Fitton called allegations against Trump "gossip" and "a nothing burger."
2) James Comey leaked documents to the media
Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on
social media:
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.
President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, issued a
blistering statement after the hearing on the subject of Comey's leaks.
3) The obstruction of justice case against Trump just went up in smoke
Senator James Risch (R-ID) questioned Comey early in the hearing about the possibility of obstruction of justice regarding the
investigation of General Michael Flynn. Risch repeatedly questioned Comey about the exact wording used by President Trump to him
in private, which Comey recorded in his
much-discussed memo .
The exchange leaves Democrat's hopes of impeachment for obstruction of justice considerably dimmed:
Comey : I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he
wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
Risch : You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.
Risch : He said, "I hope."
Comey : Those are exact words, correct.
Risch : You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?
Comey : I don't, as I sit here.
Risch : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4) Comey says the New York Times published fake news
James Comey had a
few things to say about the reporting of the New York Times which reported on collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia.
Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the
New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking
on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really
now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5) Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated
that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned
and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision
was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the
credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
6) James Comey sounds like every disgruntled former employee ever
Comey had quite a bit to say about his firing, which leaves him looking like a
disgruntled former
employee . Comey accused President Trump and his administration of lying about him, and "defaming him and more importantly the
FBI."
Comey also explained that his discomfort with the President and the belief that Trump would lie about him led to the creation
of his memo on the meeting. "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it really important
to document," Comey said. "I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but
to protect the FBI."
... ... ...
Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at [email protected]
So, "While Trump had done nothing illegal in requesting Comey to drop the investigation, there
is still the question of 'political interference' and the optics.".
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."
"... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."
"... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."
"... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."
"... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."
"... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."
"... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."
"... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."
"... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."
"... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."
"... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."
"... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."
"... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."
"... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
"... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."
"... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."
"... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."
"... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."
"... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."
"... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."
"... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."
"... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."
"... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."
"... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."
"... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."
And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various
national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been
complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure
of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite
possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something
just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.
President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that
I happen to agree with. I recently produced
my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup,
call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being
directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to
suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed
hands at the inauguration on January 20 th . In line with that thinking, some observers
are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would
have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process
and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."
Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry
of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent
from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary
Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent
to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.
Ray
suggests that
Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI
cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular
was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by
Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced.
As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously
while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians,
it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated.
If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking
to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.
Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is
"Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?"
and then followed up with a second Piece
"The
'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up
of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent
special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually
committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.
Like Parry, I
am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is
awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators
ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge
within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a
group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.
Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted
of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly
suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted
in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced
a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore
was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.
Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how
the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working
by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so
when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through
executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support
allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless,
anyone even vaguely
connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential
traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of
the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.
Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional
liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who
believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.
The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy
mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive
action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing
down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal
for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also
fit.
The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with
the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment.
The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for
the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."
The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves
by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.
So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics
should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and
Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like
Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their
views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists
for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign
policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical
weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as
narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in
a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security
and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump
can do. Are They
Really Out to Get Trump? Sometimes paranoia is justified
The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered
to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship.
In light of what is being used, a phony claim of Russian interference with the US political system,
the danger that nuclear war might be the outcome of this coup is real.
I don't know who Robert Parry is but to me this Colin Powell stuff is pure nonsense. At the
same time my answer to the question "Are They Really Out to Get Trump?" is affirmative. Republicans
and Democrats want Trump out and Pence in. The operation with Flynn who allegedly deceived Pence
was part of this plan. That Trump fired Flynn was his greatest mistake in this game. It was not
fatal yet. This was Their plan since the election or even earlier since Republican convention:
have Trump step down and have Pence take over. After April 4th it seemed that They got Trump where
They wanted him to be. Trump even became presidential. The escalation of rhetoric against North
Korea over following weekend and week reinforced this perception until it turned out that it was
all fake. There was no fleet steaming to Korea. Media realized they were played by Trump. During
this time Trump and Tillerson in particular got some breathing space. The pre-April 4 policy of
agreeing with Russia on Syria continued. Apparently Russia understood that the missile attack
on Syria was just part of the game. It was not personal. More recently the US agreed to safe zones
plan by Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey. One should expect a false flag of gas attack or accidental
bombing by US air force of Syrian forces to happen soon – broadcasted all night before the start
of the US media news cycle by BBC, so US media, all talking heads memorize all talking points.
While it is possible that Trump behaves erratically w/o well thought out plans we must give
him a benefit of doubt and assume that there is a deep reason for firing Comey. Trump is fighting
for his life. While he would prefer to be presidential and enjoy easy going times and provide
peace and safety for his family by know he knows that nothing will satisfy Them. They want him
out! Erratic Trump and confused and chaotic WH is a meme which They and Their media want to plant
and reinforce. That's why we hear about it all the time. But how to explain the firing of Comey?
I would look for the answer at DOJ. Initially their hands were tied up but slowly they showed
that there is new leadership at DOJ that was working for Trump for a change. Their independence
of the Deep State was demonstrated by forcing Israel police to arrest Mossad operative/patsy for
the wave of world wide anti-semitic hoaxes that were meant to undermine and compromise Trump.
This is the proof that DOJ and part of FBI finally is strong enough and working for Trump. What
next do they want to do? If they want to squash this "collusion with Russia" false narrative that
is paralyzing the administration and in fact all belt way they must hit at those who originated
this narrative, meaning Hillary Clinton and Obama. To do it they need to have a full control of
FBI. Comey is gone. McCabe must go next. Will DOJ and new FBI go after Susan Rice, Sally Yates
and Loretta Lynch? If they do this will lead to Obama. Will they go after Hillary Clinton and
her emails? Will they secure Anthony Weiner computer? Does it still exist? Who will be nominated
to replace Comey? What Trump will have to promise GOP to have him approved?
The bottom line is that Trump is fighting for his life.
Of course they are. The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece,
Netherlands.
In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want
to rid themselves of this establishment.
GB is the first country where maybe this succeeded, but, as in the USA, the GB establishment
and the EU establishment do anything to prevent that things really change.
The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states,
power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars,
power of governments, on the other hand.
In France one sees that once again the establishment won, 60% of the French still support the
establishment, 40% rejects it.
In other countries more or less the same.
The opposing views make governing increasingly difficult, two months after the Dutch elections
the efforts to contrue a government are a failure.
Belgium was more than a year without a government.
In Spain one government after another.
The establishment now fears that Austria will turn around.
Until now Brussels, by threats and cajoling, prevented a rebellion against Brussels in Poland
and Hungary.
The Greek rebellion failed completely.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do" concludes the writer.
What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares
it with China.
Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep
state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth.
A "soft coup" against Donald Trump will be in fact an improvement. The "narcissist" president
won't be killed. It will be a soft clean coup. Progress.
Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent
Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that
the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks.
Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The
story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life.
Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made
a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull
the trigger for him.
Comey was a goner in November he just wouldn't go quietly and on his own accord, no doubt
for the reasons suggested in this piece a so-called higher calling and his own inflated sense
of service to his country.
Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the
highest of marks from internet readers around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis
, as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership
growing at an exponential rate.
Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we
should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "
If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when
our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination
to Hillary ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of
millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on
?
Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty
pool" being played out in the back room ?.
According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate
their son's bizarre murder, it was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.
(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director"
at the DNC, shot to death on july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)
In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that
Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks .NOT Russia.
The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary
due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives
in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release
Seth's laptop computer to his family ?
We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie
nomination.(we all know this)
This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted
Bernie running in the general election against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head".
What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts
of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought down "the back room" of
the DNC.
Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.
"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT
from an investigation into their OWN "real"criminality .
How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media,
by grafting the allegations of the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the
Donald, and Vladimir Putin.
Clever, clever, clever.
Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist")
asks some basic questions about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?
I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed
unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation?
Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the
Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course?
Trump has turned out to be very weak. Maybe he just doesn't believe in anything, so it doesn't
matter to him. Or maybe he has some ideas, but has no clue about implementation. He's going to
see the Tribe next week. That will tell us a lot, I'm thinking. But it's a lot that we probably
already know or at least can guess.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.
For more dangerous to American democracy has been the ZOG engineered by the "Friends of Zion,"
but, unfortunately, there is little chance there will ever be a Zion-gate investigation.
Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla
of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would
not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.
Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on.
If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the
various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected
president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already
too late for that.
I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to
loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from
deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. For a time
he was even making "never Trumper" little (((William Kristol))) coo with delight which is no small
feat. Moreover, he's a lickspittle of Israel which seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.
The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama
left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change
on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them
apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and
predictable like Tom Pence.
@animalogic "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would
be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled - ad nauseam - that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
Conspiracies are NOT hard to sustain. That's an absurd statement. Deepstate has been sustaining
and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but
the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public
communications.
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing"
which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering
operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
Some of the investigations have expanded
their scope to include careful scrutiny of Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia. Recently FinCEN, which specializes in fighting money laundering, agreed to turn over records to the Senate
Intelligence Committee in this regard. Even Sen. Linsey Graham recently stated he wanted to know
more about Trump's business dealings with Russia. The possibility that this may result in a criminal
investigation cannot be ruled out. The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This
may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey
firing??)
Dutch Public Broadcasting has recently broadcast a two part series exploring some of the connections
involving Trump's business dealings with Russia.
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
As you know, Brennan is an extreme liberal Democrat, a creature of both Clinton and Obama. He
is an utterly unprincipled old fool. He failed as a CIA operations officer and went back to Langley
with his tail between his legs to become analyst. Nothing wrong with that but he nursed bitter
resentment at the Clandestine Service during his whole career. He was finally allowed to go out
as chief in, of all places, Riyadh. He promptly destroyed the station with his incompetence, though
he earned the praise of the ambassador, as such toadies usually do. Brennan is perfectly capable
of the things you describe. Washington is awash in these kinds of traitors. If Trump does not
have a plan to arrest them all some dark night then he is a fool himself.
And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized
the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order.
I repeat, why hasn't Trump issued an executive order cancelling Obama's executive order? He
needs to stop this information sharing if he expects to remain President.
Phil, is there any one who has Trump's ear? The mainstream media are hell bent in destroying
anyone close to Trump. First, Flynn, then Steve Bannon and now Kellyanne Conway. Trump must stop
these leaks from the White House. He should fire all Obama holdovers.
@Hobo
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian
thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in
a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
... ... ... ...
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft,
or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and
that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House.
Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House
itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with
that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to
the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated
interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of
his own Bureau , which Trump has described as "showboating."
It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's
bid, something strongly endorsed by Obama. Going with this narrative requires Obama to have engineered
Hillary's departure followed by a concerted plan to unseat Trump as well, both objectives
utilizing
Comey! To what end? Paint chaos on the American political canvas?
@Colleen Pater This " theory " isnt a theory its not debatable and its clear both parties
and every power node in the world are signalling they will do whatever they can to help. Its really
a good thing they are not fooling anyone but some maroon prog snowflakes. Trump was the howard
beale last option before civil war candidate, he won fair and square , actually despite massive
cheating by the other side and now they are overthrowing him in full view of the american people.Its
good as long as idiots on the right still believed in democracy, that getting their candidate
in would change war was averted. after thirty years of steady leftism no matter who was in power
they voted trump now trumps being overthrown. They will see we dont live in a democracy we live
in the matrix democracy is diversionary tactic to prevent us from killing them all. And kill them
all is what we must do.
I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself.
Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents
itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts
of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being
fought.
The "establishment" does not seem to care.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our
wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep
State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration
in office.
Its an insatiable appetite...that grows larger every year.
Any President, elected by the people today,to end our wars will simply not be tolerated by the
establishment class and the deep state it lords over.
The problem is not that we have an "establishment", the problem is our establishment is addicted
to war.
Only "war" will do for them, full time, all the time..... end of story.
Today, any President is given two choices once in office....make WAR..... or be impeached.
The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending
our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed
the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently
of any administration in office.
Precisely. Frankly, I suspect 90% of the daily brouhaha of conspiracies and collusion theories
is a product solely of tawdry greed. The rich will do anything for money . anything.
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under
investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is
no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
Quite so. Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making
the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome
legalities. It was intended to produce a public reaction like "Oh, they double-checked like good
investigators, and sure enough, Hillary's email operation was completely legit."
At what point does political infighting cross the line into treason?
There's a line somewhere between the two, obviously. Perhaps its when you break the law? Perhaps
its when you leak classified documents? Or details of a key diplomatic meeting?
@utu There will be no open coup. Trump will resign for health reason or in the worst case
scenario will be declared unfit for health reasons. And Pence will give a speech how great Trump
was and how great his ideas were and that now he as president will continue his vision. And many
people will believe it.
@iffen It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered
Hillary's bid
There is reason to believe that Clinton's email troubles were having a major impact. Many were unconvinced by Comey's first pronouncement that there was no case there. (I thought
this was the prosecutor's job anyway. People would have been skeptical of a compromised Lynch
saying that there was no case, but might be persuaded by Comey.)
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation)
and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince
a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
It looks to me as though the "deep state" is getting progressive dementia. While inhabited
by many high I.Q. players, their moves are increasingly insane. They had assumed their "Surveillance
State" would become all intrusive, giving them ever greater control over us peasants. The reverse
has happened, where most of the 7 billion of us have cell phones that record and display all their
nefarious deeds. We have a million times more high I.Q. people than them, that increasingly are
waking up and exposing those psychopaths for the pieces of garbage that they are.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation"
of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities.
No. They knew then that election could not be stolen (for whatever reasons) for Clinton. The 28th
October announcement by Comey was the signal to press to change the fake narrative of huge advantage
in polls by Hillary and prepare the eventual excuse for Hillary why she lost.
Comey was abruptly and unceremoniously fired after he stated that Clinton had forwarded thousands
of e-mails containing classified information on an unsecured server to wiener and friends. Hardly
covering Clintons back. The FBI investigates -- it does not prosecute -- that is the function of the
attorney generals office. The AG solely has the power to convene a grand jury, not the FBI. The
deputy attorney general Rosenstein writes a scathing report and recommendation to fire Comey.
Trump, probably on Kushner's urging fires Comey. Comey redacts his prior statement.
My guess is that the FBI were very close to the neocons hidden secret -- Clinton and its foundation are foreign
assets and not of Russia, hence, we have the Russia-gate diversion. Unfortunately, Comey;s replacement
will be toothless, merely a shelf ornament. And what happened? We hear no more of Kushners? omitting
his relationship to the Rothchilds enterprises. Flynn was fired for far less. Is/ are Kushner?
and/ or Rosenstein the leak(s)?
The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid.
They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against
Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which
there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the
people.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... The only way the people were ever going to believe in your system, was (and is) when you brought all of this Clinton email stuff before a grand jury and actually called it what it was and laid real charges!! ..."
"... When he laid out the case of everything Hillary did wrong in protecting classified information on her private server and then had the gumption to say that no "reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, I knew the fix was in. ..."
The only way the people were ever going to believe in your system, was (and is) when you
brought all of this Clinton email stuff before a grand jury and actually called it what it was
and laid real charges!!
Comey was paid off somehow or maybe he was blackmailed with a picture of him wearing a dress.
I'm not sure how.
When he laid out the case of everything Hillary did wrong in protecting
classified information on her private server and then had the gumption to say that no "reasonable
prosecutor" would take the case, I knew the fix was in.
On Wednesday the
American conservative non-partisan watchdog group released 1,184 pages of State
Department records including "previously unreleased" Hillary Clinton emails.
The watchdog specified that the emails were obtained through a Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit.
Judicial Watch's
press release
published on its website reveals that the records include 29
previously undisclosed Clinton's emails "of a total of which is now at least 288
emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to
the State Department."
"This further appears to contradict statements by [Hillary]
Clinton that, 'as far as she knew,' all of her government emails were turned over to
the State Department," the watchdog said.
For instance, back in February 2010, Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff
to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent information concerning former
Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed to Clinton's and deputy chief of staff Huma
Abedin's unsecure email accounts.
This email exchange has been classified by the State Department as information "to
be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; foreign
relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources."
Yet another email containing classified information was forwarded by Hillary
Clinton to Abedin's unsecure email account April 8, 2010.
The
original email
addressed to Sid Blumenthal and entitled "Change of Government
in Kyrgyzstan," apparently discloses the US State Department's role in the Kyrgyz
regime change in April 2010.
Blumenthal's source informed him that he/she had "worked
in the Kyrgyz Republic continuously since 1991" and "became acquainted with each
of the three Kyrgyz leaders" including Kyrgyz diplomat Roza Otunbayeva. The source
provided Blumenthal with detailed characteristics of Otunbayeva, explaining why she
was "selected" by the Kyrgyz opposition.
The source cited the opposition's doubts that Otunbayeva "can be a successful
candidate for president especially given her weak performance in prior elections
to parliament."
"It is stressed that her prospects increase as relations with foreign powers are
seen as problematic, since she alone among the opposition figures is viewed as having
the stature and skills necessary to cope with difficult foreign affairs problems,"
the source wrote.
In conclusion the redacted email reads that "all of this
suggests the necessity for the State Department to assert itself and take the lead
in developing relations with the new government."
The emails exposed that Doug Band, a former adviser to ex-president Bill Clinton
forwarded Abedin a request for help from Philip Levine, presumably the mayor of Miami
Beach. What is more interesting is that Levine had reportedly been a fundraiser
for the Clintons since the 1990s, the watchdog remarked.
In his
interviews with Sputnik
investigative journalist and Wall Street analyst Charles
Ortel, who is currently involved in a private inquiry into the Clinton Foundation's
alleged fraud, highlighted that Hillary Clinton has long been criticized for her
apparent use of "pay-for-play" schemes.
"These emails are yet more evidence of Hillary Clinton's
casual and repeated violations of laws relating to the handling of classified
information. The Justice Department should finally begin an independent investigation
into the Clinton email matter," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated.
The conclusion from 'no mens rea' implies "simple
negligence", simple negligence only applies to GS 3's. The
managers and the experience are held to a higher standard.
If it was 'no mens rea' then she was neither qualified nor
experienced, she is no accountable.
Which may be okay for crooks in the swamp needing drained.
What she did with "bathroom email server" is worse then a
crime. It is a blunder. Which disqualifies Hillary (and her
close entourage) for any government position.
The level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is
just astounding. Actually it is not astounding. It is
incredible. I can't believe that a person with Yale law
degree can be so hopelessly stupid and arrogant.
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States
federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having
a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.
Good summary, but now, with some time passed, and Hillary out of Presidential race we can create
a more detailed summary. Actually for me it is unclear whether she is a felon, but she is definitely
a moron (along with all her close entourage).
The key question here is the actual level of damage to national security achieved by her actions
(or inactions). It might be great, but it might be nothing at all.
There is no question that Hillary Clinton "private" (aka bathroom) email server violated a
lot of regulations and her NDA. So formally she is guilty as hell and as a felon should go to
jail, like a lot of common folks do for similar, or even lesser, violations.
But she belongs to the "masters of the universe' and as such is above the common law. So
let's limit ourselves to the question whether she really damaged national security
First of all what Hillary did is the not just creation of her private email server. She created her "Shadow IT" Department within State Department staffed with
people, who are probably OK or even good for running IT in non-profits and charities, but not
above this level. And that even abstracting from formalities such as security clearance, presence
of classified mail in her mail stream, wiping the evidence, etc creation of Shadow IT is a a big "No-no".
Clearly
severely punishable "career-limiting" move. I now understand why Mills advised Hillary not to
run. So why she survives after such a move. That's mystery.
In corporate environment the creation of "Shadow IT" is a very serious, typically fatal charge that usually leads to immediate termination.
For federal government it is even worse, as it smells with treason. That means that all senior level IT staff
of State Department is fully complicit, and needs to be investigated and probably persecuted for
their cowardice. They understood well the level of danger and choose to ignore it "hiding their
head in the sand, like an ostrich"
But there are a lot of strange thing in this story. Both the behavior of NSA, and, surprise, surprise White house IT staff was very strange. They
definitely knew about this setup. They did not directly or indirectly reported to Hillary, unlike
IT staff of State Department. And still they did nothing. Obama himself also knew about it.
Did nothing. That
tells us something about this president. Although interception of domestic communication were never in NSA charter, still this is what
they do for living, and that means the NSA also played very strange, unexplainable to me role
in this story. NSA staff also knew about the setup from Hillary request to provide a specially secured version
of Blackberry (similar to what Obama used). Which surprisingly was denied. Looks like NSA did
not like Hillary much, is not it.
Now about the security. On the level required to create State Department infrastructure the setup used was completely
childish. It was not even incompetent, it was childish. Probably IT people responsible never saw
any other type of IT infrastructure then cash poor non-profits and never ever read NIST recommendations
for setup of this type of servers, to say nothing about more serious staff.
Even on my rather primitive understanding of computer security all those men and women involved
in Clinton bathrooms mail server drama look like complete and utter morons. But this is a real
life and such situations do happen in very large corporations, but not that often. So again
what was the real damage?
Any discussion of whether the server was "open" for hacking to state or non state actors or
not simply does not make any sense. My impression is that the level of security in Hillary's Shadow
IT server infrastructure (which includes internet modem (they were using regular ISP, like any
non-profit), router and other staff like networked printer(s)) was much lower that is required
for this question to make sense.
Still miracles happen and may be some foreign agencies thought that this is a trap, a "honeypot"
in "security-speak". So being utter moron might be a good security protection
measure in its own right, as paradoxical as it is.
But it is unclear at what point the traffic was intercepted if it was. People usually
concentrate of "bathroom server". But what about internet router and modem?
If traffic was intercepted on the router level in real time (it was not encrypted) then the damage was very real and
Hillary can be viewed as a traitor. If not, and only dumps of old emails were obtained after
she left her position of State Secratary, the question
about real damage is more complex and here the situation is alot similar with the situation
with Manning. An old staff (assuming that it was more the a year old) may be embarrsing, may
be danaging, bit it is what it is "old". Played cards. Even if some of them were
classified it is unclear what useful info can extracted for such emails. Compromising
information probably yes. Tactical information that preempts some US actions probably .no.
Also we need to take into account that Huma Abedin was a completely computer illiterate person,
who did her own set of blunders (including creating a hidden channel that copied emails to her
home server). And that Hillary herself looks like reckless sociopath, concerned only about her personal
power and money, not the interests of the state. Not to understand the level of danger she exposed State Department communications is unconceivable
for any lawyer, forget about Yale graduate at the top of her class. That increase the
damage.
Please note that whether the idea was to hide her activities was connected with "pay for pay" involving Clinton
foundation, paranoia, or something else is a completely separate topic.
IMHO Comey proved to be a "despicable coward" who first decided not to derail Clinton run (probably
not without pressure from Obama and/or Bill Clinton via Attorney General Loretta Lynch), but then,
when he discovered "Abedin channel" it well might be that he has had a second thought. That's how I read his controversial behavior. Nothing honorable in this interpretation of his
behavior too.
The whole set of events looks like literally taken from pages of the famous novel "The Good
Soldier Svejk: and His Fortunes in the World War". And we know what eventually happened to Austro-Hungarian
empire.
"... Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries would indicate. The latter could be the former. ..."
"... If military intelligence folk gave Trump his insider knowledge about Weiner's laptop, maybe they suspected the source of leaking intelligence. Dig? ..."
Willing to go out on a speculative limb. Some people want answers like Giuliani, and not because
they're interested, as Holder shrilly claimed, in 'jail[ing] political opponents.'
Abedin had top secret information on a laptop in her home that she never disclosed to FBI
interviwers. She and her husband had money, or a source of income, above & beyond what their salaries
would indicate. The latter could be the former.
It is unclear whether it was actually hacked, but the server was so unprofessionally managed that
hacking it is within the reach of medium qualification hacker. It violates the USA guidelines
for setting government mail server in all major areas. The only thing that could saved it from
hacking is that it looked very much as honeypot. On state level hacking there are no idiots or
script kiddies. They would never attack the server directly. They would probably go first after 'no
so bright" Bryan Paglian home network, or, better, after home network of completely clueless in
computer security Huma Abedin. There are many ways to skin the cat, and after the USA
developed Flame and Stixnet the gloves went off. At least for Iranians, who were targeted by
those cyber attacks.
Notable quotes:
"... he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies. ..."
"... Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty. ..."
"... Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest. ..."
"... So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server. ..."
Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra said that he is "100 percent
confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies.
"I said this right away when we found out she had a secret server. I said, 'OK, that thing was
hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and maybe some other governments,'" Hoekstra said
on "Breitbart News Saturday" on Sirius/XM Channel 125.
Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national
defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which
includes dishonesty.
... ... ...
Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of
the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to
use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies
were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real
time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest.
So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were
working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get
those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left
and put onto her server.
Breitbart News has led the media in exposing the national security ramifications of Clinton's private
email server. In a recent piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Email Case Explained,"
Breitbart News reported:
Hillary's 2008 campaign IT specialist Bryan Pagliano
labored for months in a room on K Street in Washington, D.C., building the server for Clinton
to use.
Hillary Clinton kicked off her State Department career in Foggy Bottom in January 2009 with
a private Apple server, then switched to Pagliano's handcrafted server
in March 2009…
…Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to hide the fact that she was using a private email
server. She emailed with
President Obama while Obama was using a pseudonym. She kept her own State Department IT Help
Desk in the dark about her secret email activities, because her private email account
got flagged when she tried to send emails to her own staff. "It bounced back. She called the
email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no
idea it was YOU," Abedin told her. Clinton even
paid a firm in Jacksonville called "Perfect Privacy LLC" to plug in phony owner names for
her email network on Internet databases.
The server
had an open webmail portal, making it easily vulnerable to run-of-the-mill hackers. James
Comey noted evidence showing
hacks by "hostile actors." Capitol Hill sources speak in hushed tones about
the "Russian
Files," which are said to include information about a Russian hack. Clinton was warned of
a security "vulnerability" on her BlackBerry on her first official trip to China, and the State
Department told her to stop using it. But Clinton decided to keep using it.
She told a private audience in a paid speech that her BlackBerry was under attack constantly
by the Chinese and Russians.
The State Department warned Clinton to stop using her Blackberry to conduct email
business after the Department flagged a major security "vulnerability" on Clinton's first
official trip to China as Secretary of State. But Clinton ignored the warning and kept using her
Blackberry.
Flynn said that the media is covering up Clinton's alleged crimes:
People need to know what this is and so the mainstream media-all of the media, basically 99 percent of the media-doesn't
even bother with it anymore. Nobody even covers it anymore. This is dangerous for our country and then you throw in all this
stuff from this past week-you have this case against Anthony Weiner and he's directly tied to Hillary Clinton.
He's under multiple investigations. Then you have the Clinton Foundation, which is under multiple investigations by the FBI,
and not just one but multiple.
You have the reopening of the national security investigation by the FBI directly against Hillary Clinton, that's another one
that's open.
So I mean we are stupid people, we are stupid people in this country is we elect Hillary Clinton to be our next president
because we're going to have nothing but scandal and dark cloud scandal over our country for the next four years and we cannot
afford it with all the problems we face in this country and all the problems we face around the world.
What we need is we need to drain the damn swamp .
We need to get new leadership in our country, we need to get fresh blood in our country, and we need to stop the madness we
are facing with this era of corruption in our country that has been going on for decades. We have got to stop it.
Now the question is: if this is true, why the invetigation was reopened in the first place?
For many voters, this story comes too late. More than 12m votes have already been cast across
the country in early voting, representing around 10% of the likely total votes in this election.
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Sunday that he
had seen no evidence in a recently discovered trove of emails to change his conclusion that
Hillary Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.
... ... ...
The letter was a dramatic final twist in a tumultuous nine days for
both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, who drew
widespread criticism for announcing that the F.B.I. had discovered new emails that might be
relevant to its investigation of Mrs. Clinton, which ended in July with no charges. That
criticism of Mr. Comey from both parties is likely to persist after the election.
"... according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation. ..."
"... Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation. ..."
"... She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative. ..."
"... The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work. ..."
"... "Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs ..."
"... We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds. ..."
"... only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses. ..."
"... The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia. ..."
"... "The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" ..."
Three weeks ago,
when we first reported that Qatar had offered to pay the Clinton Foundation $1 million after
a hacked Podesta email disclosed that the ambassador of Qatar " Would like to see WJC [William Jefferson
Clinton] 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday
in 2011 ", we said that in this particular case, the Clinton Foundation may also be in violation
of State Department ethics codes.
As we said in early October, while this has been seen by critics of the Clinton Foundation as yet
another instance of influence pandering and "pay-to-play", this time there may actually be consequences
for the Clinton Foundation: according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation
suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown
on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the
donation.
Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed,
Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation
would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's
ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed
by donations to the foundation.
Of course, US foreign policy could be very easily swayed if Hillary accepted money and simply
did not report it the receipt of such money.
She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the
Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never
flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but
these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work.
Next question is - Where does the money go? And who benefits? ,
CHAI is often portrayed by the Clinton Foundation (CF) as an initiative of the Foundation.
. . . We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe
they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality
CHAI does not receive the funds.
See paragraph 4 on page 3 of the full memo which is a part of the above ZH post.
Hillay said at one of the debates that the Clinton Foundation pays out 90% to charity.
NOT SO. Latest filing - 2014 - shows that only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder
goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal
and political expenses.
Ten years ago I considered setting up a Non-profit Family Charitable corporation, the minimum
yearly donation was 7% at that time, of course it may have changed.
Citing a "well-placed source" in the New York Police Department, Blackwater USA founder and
retired Navy SEAL Erik Prince.....said the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the
warrants and the additional arrests they were making in the Weiner investigation but received
"huge pushback" from the Justice Department.
"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by
her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they
gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the
investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'"
Hillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter,
Chelsea.
The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of documents
recovered by the FBI from Clinton's private email server.
The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain , entitled "Update," started with a message from Michael Froman,
who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international
economic affairs.
The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as "Confidential," was
sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama
aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the
pseudonym "Diane Reynolds."
"... If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not? ..."
"... The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority." ..."
"... The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments. ..."
"... Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
For, if true, Clinton could face charges in 2017 and impeachment and removal from office in 2018.
According to Baier, FBI agents have found new emails, believed to have originated on Clinton's
server, on the computer jointly used by close aide Huma Abedin and her disgraced husband, Anthony
Weiner.
Abedin's failure to turn this computer over to the State Department on leaving State appears to
be a violation of U.S. law.
Moreover, the laptops of close Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, thought destroyed
by the FBI, were apparently retained and are "being exploited" by the National Security division.
And here is the salient point. His FBI sources told Baier, "with 99 percent" certitude, that Clinton's
Chappaqua server "had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence services."
If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry
Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What
do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not?
The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation
by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority."
Specifically, the FBI is looking into published allegations of "pay-to-play." This is the charge
that the Clinton State Department traded access, influence, and policy decisions to foreign regimes
and to big donors who gave hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with 15 years of
six-figure speaking fees for Bill and Hillary.
According to Baier's sources, FBI agents are "actively and aggressively" pursuing this case, have
interviewed and re-interviewed multiple persons, and are now being inundated in an "avalanche of
new information" from WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments.
Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation,
and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed
and cut.
Books have been written alleging and detailing them.
Also, not only Fox News but also the Wall Street Journal and other news sources are reporting
on what appears to be a rebellion inside the FBI against strictures on their investigations imposed
by higher ups in the Department of Justice of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Director Comey has come under fire from left and right-first for refusing to recommend the prosecution
of Clinton, then for last week's statement about the discovery of new and "pertinent" emails on the
Abedin-Weiner computer-but retains a reputation for integrity.
And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs
answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile
to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American
people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday.
What is predictable ahead?
Attorney General Lynch, whether she stays or goes, will be hauled before Congress to explain whether
she or top aides impeded the FBI investigations of the Clinton scandals. And witnesses from within
her Justice department and FBI will also be called to testify.
Moreover, Senate Republicans would block confirmation of any new attorney general who did not
first promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the email and pay-to-play scandals,
and any pressure from Lynch's Justice Department on the FBI.
Even Democrats would concede that a Department of Justice staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees
could not credibly be entrusted with investigating alleged high crimes and misdemeanors by former
Secretary of State Clinton and confidants like Abedin and Mills.
An independent counsel, a special prosecutor, appears inevitable.
And such individuals usually mark their success or failure by how many and how high are the indictments
and convictions they rack up.
Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly
becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).
How's that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks
revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?
It's possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria,
is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall
Street/corporate media axis.
But History has a tendency to show us there's always a straw that breaks the camel's back.
... ... ...
As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the
norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George
Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury
operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after
the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com , for its part, has
connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion
of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)
Exceptional bananas, anyone?
The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a
sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been
to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to "evil" Russian hacking when the
real source for the leaks might have come straight from the
https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/
belly of the (Washington) beast.
At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin
"Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has
whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States
has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase
in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election
debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with
which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing
instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.
I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow
influence the American people's choice? America is not some kind of 'banana republic', after all,
but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong."
Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances,
configuring a giant black hole of transparency.
Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media
Now, less than a week before the election, we have come to the crucial juncture where the WikiLeaks
revelations are merging with the FBI investigations – all three of them.
this WikiLeaks bombshell; Peter Kadzik, who's now in charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
probe into the 650,000 emails found on the laptop shared by Clinton's right-hand woman Huma Abedin
and her estranged, pervert husband Anthony Wiener, is a Clinton asset.
Not only Kadzik was an attorney for Marc Rich when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton; Podesta
– as also revealed by WikiLeaks – thanked Kadzik for keeping him "out of jail"; and it was Kadzik
who gave Podesta a secret heads up
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF on the Clinton
email investigation.
The Clinton machine, starring a self-described virtuous Madonna, is actually a pretty nasty
business. Huma and her family's close connections to Saudi Arabia – and the Muslim Brotherhood –
are legendary (that includes his brother Hassan, who works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Podesta,
by the way, is a handsomely remunerated lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington; that's part of the
Clinton Foundation connection.
Yet now, with Huma in the spotlight – still maintaining she didn't know all those emails were
in her and Wiener's laptop – it's no wonder Hillary has instantly downgraded her, publicly, to "one
of my aides". She used to be Hillary's ersatz
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser "daughter"; now she's
being framed as The Fall Princess.
And that brings us to the intersection of those three FBI investigations; on Hillary's Subterranean
Email Server (in theory closed by FBI's Comey last summer); on the Clinton Foundation; and on Wiener's
sexting of minors. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year now. Let's
try to cut a long story short.
Follow the evidence
Last July, the DOJ – under Clinton/Obama asset Loretta Lynch – decided not to prosecute anyone
on Emailgate. And yet FBI director Comey – who nonetheless stressed Hillary's "extreme carelessness"
– turbo-charged his no-denial mode on another investigation, as in the FBI "sought to refocus the
Clinton Foundation probe."
Soon we had Clinton Foundation FBI investigators trying to get access to all the emails turned
over in the Emailgate investigation. The East District of New York refused it. Very important point;
up to 2015, guess who was the US attorney at the East District; Clinton/Obama asset Lynch.
Enter an extra layer of legalese. Less than two months ago, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators
discovered they could not have access to any Emailgate material that was connected to immunity agreements.
But then, roughly a month ago, another FBI team captured the by now famous laptop shared by
Huma and Wiener – using a warrant allowing only a probe on Weiner's sexting of a 15-year-old girl.
Subsequently they found Huma Abedin emails at all her accounts – from
[email protected]to the crucial
[email protected]. This meant not only that Huma
was forwarding State Dept. emails to her private accounts, but also that Hillary was sending emails
from the "secret" clintonemail.com to Huma at yahoo.com.
No one knew for sure, but some of these emails might be duplicates of those the Clinton Foundation
FBI investigators could not access because of the pesky immunity agreements.
What's established by now is that the metadata in the Huma/Wiener laptop was duly examined. Now
picture both teams of FBI investigators – Clinton Foundation and pervert Wiener – comparing notes.
And then they decide Huma's emails are "relevant".
Key questions apply; and the most pressing is how the emails were deemed "relevant" if the investigators
could only examine the metadata. What matters is that Comey certainly was made aware of the content
of the emails – a potential game-changer. That's why one of my sources
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201610311046920348-clinton-fbi-november-surprise/ insists
his decision to go public came from above.
The other key question now is whether the DOJ – via Kadzik? – will once again thwart another
investigation, this time on the Clinton Foundation. Senior, serious FBI agents won't take that –
massive euphemism – kindly. The FBI has been on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. Now, arguably,
they are loaded with evidence – and they won't quit. Winning the presidency now seems to be the least
of Hillary Clinton's Bonfire of Scandals' problems.
Eric, November 4, 2016 1:08 pm
After the Nixon Watergate scandal, which avoided discussion of his war crimes and
treasonous undermining of Vietnamese peace talks, and probable role in JFK's assassination.
And after the Iran Contra scandal which also involved illegal arms transfers, obstruction of
justice, end running around supplying arms to terrorists, drug dealing, etc., it is refreshing
that after Bill's impeachment on relatively minor charges (do older guys having affairs with
younger women occur, and they don't want to talk about it?), to see some Democrats, who have
always portrayed themselves as the good guys against the evil Nixons and Reagans and Bushes,
being caught red handed in good oldfashioned money laundering, gun running, supplying arms to
terrorists and cavorting with and accepting money from good old fashioned head chopping human
rights violators, in true treasonous style.
As the saying goes, "The country is run by gangsters, and the ones who win are called 'The
Government'.
"Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he
saw it in the news we need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say state.gov"
"How is that not classified?" Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then
expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
I can't state how huge this is, it's a cover up involving the President of the United States. There are a lot of emails implying
this, but this email states it very clearly so anyone can understand. The email proves obstruction of justice and shows how they
lied to the FBI, and likely perjury of Congress. This at the very least proves intent by her Chief of Staff.
Obama used executive privilege on their correspondence. Cheryl Mills (who was given immunity) states they need to "clean up"
the Clinton/Obama e-mails because they lacked state.gov.
Additionally, Obama on video publicly denied knowing
about the server. He also claimed on video that he learned
about the secret server through the news like everyone else. The corruption goes all the way to the top! Obama is lying to the
American public.
Hillary Clinton set up her private server to hide her pay to play deals discovered throughout these leaks, and to prevent FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) requests.
Paul Combetta was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a VERY VERY VIP individual, i.e. change the name of who
it was from. If you
read Stonetear/Combetta
story , it's easy to see this is exactly what he was attempting. He wanted to change header information on already sent mail
to show "state.gov" instead of Hillary's private email address. Multiple people informed him of the infeasibility (and illegality)
of it, so somewhere in the next 6 days it was decided that simply eradicating them was the only option left.
The FBI said they could not find intent of trying to break the law, therefore no recommendation of prosecution. This email
proves, in plain language, that there was intention, and knowingly broke the law.
Ask yourselves: why would they both be communicating on a secret server to each other? Why not through normal proper channels?
What were they hiding? We may soon find out
(Source: The Top 100 Most
Damaging WikiLeaks )
_ _ _
For the uninitiated this breakdown essentially says that President Barack Obama is stone-cold guilty of crimes and cover-ups that
would make Watergate look like a walk in the park .
In fact, Obama is so deeply involved with the criminal workings of State that he had no choice but to lie about his knowledge
of Clinton's private server and personal email account. This is why Emailgate is so HUGE- it's a massive cover-up of the greatest
crimes EVER committed by the US Government . And Obama lied his way all through the never-ending conspiratorial saga. As follows:
"... The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason he invited Farage over was because he knows this. ..."
"... When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance. ..."
"... Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal that doesn't care about the poor or the working class. ..."
"... it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite sex is a common clandestine maneuver. ..."
"... The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them. ..."
"... The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke! ..."
"... exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery. ..."
"... "Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man and go directly to her campaign website. ..."
"... Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother type who's trying to look more motherly. ..."
"... Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing. ..."
"... Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a game show. ..."
"... It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run. ..."
"... Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period? ..."
"... No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary. ..."
"... Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as "a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes, along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too. ..."
"... When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc. etc. etc. ..."
"... The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time. ..."
"... " progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these just two of your go-to slurs? ..."
"... She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. ..."
"... You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program, NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping, Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ? ..."
"... "The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency. But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign." ..."
"... Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him otherwise. ..."
"... A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive time for the election to reopen criminal investigations. ..."
"... Comey has not re-opened the investigation, he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part. ..."
"... How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many. ..."
"... Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong. ..."
"... It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it". ..."
"... Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile of shit to the whole world ..."
"... Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit. ..."
"... Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war. This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped. ..."
"... People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is public knowledge now and not speculation. ..."
"... Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government. There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world. ..."
I think the reason people don't like Obama is because he has bombed 7 countries. Maybe Clinton
can get to 8 if she goes after Russia.
NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 17:52
How do the Americans ever get anything done when 18 months of their electoral cycle is taken
up with campaigning for the next one.
riggbeck -> NotKindOrGentle 29 Oct 2016 18:13
Then there's the lunacy of mid-term elections. Four years isn't very long for a president to
deliver on major election promises, yet the constitution potentially halves that time with the
threat of losing majorities in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Checks and balances turn into gridlock.
GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 17:54
It's not the FBI that made her use a private e-mail account. It's not the FBI that decided
to install a private server. Get real. These were her decisions in an attempt to conceal her activities
while in public office.
Preparetobeoffended 29 Oct 2016 17:58
And so it goes on.
Clinton, still heading for the White House? What planet are you on!
Will Bernie supporters vote for Clinton knowing the Democrats conspired to steal the nomination
from him. Will they, really.
Will Wikileaks and Project Veritas`s most damning offerings be ignored by these sheep with hands
covering ears yelling I`m not listening! Will they, really.
Trump is the less frightening of two frightening options, but at least he has going for him the
fact that he has tenaciously attacked the corruption clear to all capable of an independent thought.
Trump is going to win, and going to win comfortably. Get used to it.
GeeDeeSea 29 Oct 2016 18:01
2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then
we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
We don't know what the emails are, I wouldn't expect us to. If there's an investigation then
you don't release confidential information. But the information that we have gleaned from Wikileaks
shows that the State authorities have been involved in shutting things down, as has the Clinton
campaign and we know that a large and suspicious payment was made to a close relative of an investigator.
We also know that the IRS has been used over a period in a partisan manner to the disadvantage
of the Republicans and that the previous decision on the emails not to take action was met with
incredulity within the FBI.
If the FBI is making this announcement now then it must have discovered something that has worried
it. It made the announcement soon after the matter arose as it should have done given that this
is a very important piece of information of which voters need to be aware.
The press to date has handled Clinton with kid gloves and it still wants to do so. Fortunately
the revelations coming out and probably the true polls have been making them think again and so
they are allowing a little doubt to enter their coverage.
Hopefully this will be the end of the Clinton campaign, but with the money, contacts and other
resources available to it there will be an immense effort, from the State and campaign, to blacken
the reputation of a body which previously has served Clinton so well.
absentlyadjustable 29 Oct 2016 18:16
Can I point out as well how biased the reporting of the Presidential campaign has been in the
UK? Most of the media have been acting as the publicity wing of the Democrats and the only people
to be interviewed, especially on the BBC, seem to have been from the liberal Clinton supporting
press
AndyPandy1968 29 Oct 2016 18:29
I am sorry to say my personal feeling is that this is the last straw and Trump will win.
I don't support him but he is not stupid, and he was running too close for comfort even before
this. He is not playing to the Guardian, he is playing to an American audience, many of whom have
a totally different view of the world.
The US has one thing in common with the UK. A massive hidden disenfranchised underclass, who
are often unemployed or underemployed . He will get that vote, just as brexit did, and the reason
he invited Farage over was because he knows this.
That is why he says these clumsy things. Not because he is stupid. He says them because he is
playing to that audience. It is deliberate.
Let's hope I am wrong.
DogsLivesMatter 29 Oct 2016 18:31
When you see all the corruption and fraud that goes on around the world by the wealthy
and powerful you see that change by grass root movements doesn't stand a chance.
Politicians with their nepotism and cronyism , CEO's, Bankers/Hedge Funnd Managers, Big
Business, Big Pharma, Lobbyists, Industrialists, Multi-Nationals...all part part of a Global Cabal
that doesn't care about the poor or the working class.
Even the UN and WHO are stacked with those who have influential connections. Pay to Play has
become the norm. What choice does anyone have anymore other than going with the devil you know?
None!
Sappho53 29 Oct 2016 18:35
The world wants a complete investigation into the illegal Iraq War with consequences. The world
is still reeling form this Republican LIE and it has cost US allies dearly in lives, finances,
and terrorism. The Republicans have hidden from the biggest scandal of the past one hundred years.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice must answer and so must all of their supporters in the Republican
Party.
Glenn Smith 29 Oct 2016 18:40
Contrary to your interpretation, Mr. Wolffe, I think the FBI's brave action is going to have
precisely the result of denying Hillary the election, and justifiably so (and not that I think
Trump is any better): it is my belief that they are already relatively certain that at least
one State Department email with classified information, and perhaps many more, reside on a laptop
computer owned by Anthony Weiner and used by him to exchange sexually explicit content with supposedly
underage women -- and I say "supposedly" because posing as an available member of the opposite
sex is a common clandestine maneuver.
providenciales -> BlueberryCompote 29 Oct 2016 19:12
Actually, people will be able to buy the insurance they can afford and that they want if we
get rid of Obamacare. You wouldn't like unaffordable insurance with deductibles that mean you
don't have any coverage either.
Trump has already said who he would nominate to SCOTUS so you can't scaremonger on that score.
He gave a list in fact.
The war candidate is and always has been Hillary. Never met a war she didn't like. Trump OTOH
is much more interested in money than in war. He is an isolationist. It's one reason I like his
platform, I am tired of the wars. Hillary would continue them.
Casey13 29 Oct 2016 18:51
Once Hillary is elected the whole stinking cesspit of Clinton Inc will start crashing down
around her in a hodgepodge of scandals that make Watergate look like Jay walking. She will be
Impeached within a year.
JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 18:56
The problem with Hillary (which the DNC should have thought about as they sabotaged Bernie
Sander's bid in the primaries) is that there is more then enough kindling in her background to
create a decent fire....and lots and lots of smoke!
boxcarwillie -> JavaZee 29 Oct 2016 19:08
exactly - enough skeletons in her closet to fill a good sized cemetery.
Theleme1532 29 Oct 2016 19:03
"Pseudo-scandal"? Or pseduo-journalism. Richard Wolffe's credibility as a journalist just
went up in flames. If you want to read Hillary Clinton's media releases, cut out the middle man
and go directly to her campaign website.
boxcarwillie 29 Oct 2016 19:06
Clinton is unpopular because, at the innermost core, she's unlikable. Sort of an evil stepmother
type who's trying to look more motherly. doesn't work. with that said, the article is right
- this has been a dumpster fire campaign and i'll be glad to see it over. i doubt HRC will make
good on any of her campaign promises, but i would be afraid Trump would. Hope it's better next
time. Bernie would be 78, but that's not as old as it used to be.
Reality_Man 29 Oct 2016 19:14
On the web I read that the NY FBI office is in open rebellion with the DC FBI and that during
the Antony Wiener investigation they found classified emails on a shared laptop PC. Who knows
maybe Huma will be under arrest before November the 8th. One way or another it was done for a
reason I would suggest that the FBI is still a law enforcement agency not a political organization.
As the end of the Obama administration comes to pass it's only natural that the Chinese made him
get out of the back of air force one to show a lack of respect and other countries and agencies
may be showing what they feel. Strong Together may not work if Huma is separated from her baby.
She just may sing terrified bird. Just Saying.
Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:15
This election is a sad reflection on the current state of democracy across much of the Western
World. The major political parties are so compromised with insider politics and a lack of genuine
concern for the long-term benefit of the voters they purport to represent that they keep on producing
candidates of the worst quality.
Into this mess is the media, which refuses to provide serious discussion and analysis over
important economic, social, environmental and foreign policy issues. Instead it turns everything
into theatre with a focus on sex scandals, rumours, hair cuts and what the candidate is wearing.
Our democracies - not just in the United States but around the world - are under threat from this
same malaise. It starts with political parties that care more about protecting the interests of
a few insiders and influential interest groups. These political movements no longer appeal to
the majority of voters.
Elections are being won or lost on wafer thin margins because the choice of candidate are
so poor. Policy is ignored or even mostly absent. Instead we have what is little better than a
game show.
It is like a choice between Pepsi and Coke, whatever choice you make you only get highly sugared
and fizzy lolly water that won't do your health any good in the long run.
BlueberryCompote -> Arcane 29 Oct 2016 19:22
You've got to admit, however, that America has the worst and most extreme version of this problem
with little sign of anyway out.
bookworm7 29 Oct 2016 19:29
This raises the obvious question: what on earth was the FBI director thinking when he
dropped his letter on Friday making it crystal clear that he knew nothing?
He said the investigation was being re-opened in the light of new evidence. If the investigators
'knew everything' why would they investigate? The above is a piece of sophistry conflating the
knowledge of the facts with the knowledge that the facts are to be investigated.
I can see how the timing looks suspect, but consider the alternative; if he knew about the new
evidence necessitating the re-opening of the investigation, and withheld telling Congress on purpose
because Clinton was a politician close to an electron, would this also not look bad? Could he
not be accused of withholding pertinent information for political purposes?
Perhaps all politicians close to an election should be immune from the law for a period?
PlayaGiron 29 Oct 2016 19:32
No spin from the neoliberal establishment will save their queen Hillary.
Gangoffour -> Bifocal 29 Oct 2016 20:52
Because we're talking about the Big Circumcised Weiner, someone who self-identifies as
"a perpetually horny middle-aged man", we've got the fun prospects of one or more sex crimes,
along with volumes of sorta' consensual sex, being documented among the, possibly, famous and
the soon to famous; and a little wealthier too.
I'm sure it's a lot easier to pick up honey pots when they provide a sympathetic shoulder to snuggle
into because your wife refuses to satisfy your needs since she's doing all of Hillary's work.
Who wouldn't want to be part of the Clinton matchmaking machine?
Berkeley2013 29 Oct 2016 20:22
Mr Wolffe writes:
"From the Clinton Foundation to the private email server, from Benghazi to Weiner, from
Whitewater to Monica, the list is as long as it is utterly spurious. Whatever crumbs of wrongdoing
there may be, they don't amount to something worthy of Watergate, or even the myriad gate-suffixed
scandals since. Questionable behavior is not the same as criminal or even impeachable conduct."
How could anything involving the protocols and laws regarding national security communications
be called "spurious?"
How can anything involving many separate pieces of DoS communication be called "crumbs of wrongdoing?"
gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:41
When the the swamp is drained the American people will be shocked and sickened by the crimes
of the people behind the so-called progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin
that the bankster cabal sent among the people to destroy the United States. By all means, the
corrupt politicians and their masters must be investigated. So too the people who run the disgusting
corporate media and scurrilous vermin behind groups like "Media Matters" "Open Societies" etc.
etc. etc.
BlueberryCompote -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:45
The trouble with your argument is that the Conservative side has analogous front organisations
backed by oil and other interest groups which are intent on imposing their will regardless of
the popular will. The Conservatives have indeed been outgunned by the Liberal mafia this time.
nostrobo -> gladiointurkey 29 Oct 2016 20:57
" progressive, globalist, socialist, thieving, murdering vermin"... How are the "bankster
cabal" you conjure in any way progressive and/or socialist? Do you have any clue, or are these
just two of your go-to slurs?
AdamEdward88 29 Oct 2016 21:10
She doesn't mind the disgusting behaviour and carryings-on of Trump being exposed before
an election and it shouldn't be any different for her either. We hear a lot about the accusations
against Donald Trump in this country and we don't hear much about what Hillary has done with all
her emails or what is alleged to have been written in them. I'd be quite interested to find
out what was in any she might have sent to Tony Blair. She hasn't got a good track record on the
Middle-East and we base our opinions in this country on a different set of media reports to people
in the US.
Starwars102 29 Oct 2016 21:11
The integrity of the Obama administration.
You have got to be joking. How about the War in Yemen, 90% + casualty rates with drone
strikes and targeted assassination, Saudi Arabia weapons deals, vetoing JASTA, War in Syria and
Libya disaster, NSA surveillance continuing, Civil Asset forfeiture equitable sharing program,
NDAA 2012 - 17 including indefinite detention and now women's draft, 2nd Amendment infringement
and calls for Australian gun control , Guantanamo still open, still pursuing REAL ID, TSA groping,
Biometric database and associated ID card to track movements 24/7, Militarization of the police
under 1033 program, Federal government procurement of Stingrays and ALPR readers, smart meter
program spying, CISA, IRS and Fast and Furious scandals, prosecution of Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, Edward Snowden, pursuance of TPP, TISA and TTIP ?
That list of problems was a mile long and there is probably a lot more I have not mentioned. Says
a lot about Obama's time in office.
mrjonno 29 Oct 2016 21:26
And we still look to the USA for leadership in the world? Give me a break. This is a country
that is responsible for destroying much of the world through the economic paradigm of neoliberalism
which has seen the introduction of economy based in 'throw away and buy new' along with 'dodgy
money' to create the 1% leading to resource overshoot. On current trends we are well in deficit.
From World Footprint -
Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue,
by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only
have one.
Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable presidential material but when has the USA ever been
about being suitable for the world? Never.
BTW Earth Overshoot Day happened on August 8 this year. Since then we are using more than the
planet Earth can absorb or replenish. We are on a collision course with catastrophe.
Well done America....
unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:34
"The latest pseudo-scandal to hit Clinton is unlikely to rob her of the presidency.
But it sure isn't going to impress voters already sickened by a shocking campaign."
Pseudo-scandal??!! Where in Gods name are you coming from to arrive at that conclusion? FBI
Director Comey closed the file on further investigation a few months ago saying while Clinton's
casual handling of certain State Dept classified emails was reprehensible, he was not recommending
criminal action because there was an absence of any evidence she had acted with criminal intent.
Even a number of actions such as the possible destruction of 31,000 emails and several
mobiles after receiving a Congressional subpoena to produce them was not enough to persuade him
otherwise.
Yet now, despite clearly realising its dramatic effect on the impending presidential election
Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened
because of new emails that have come to light. However, since his original ruling was that he
saw no criminal intent in Clinton's careless dissemination of State emails to private servers
it is difficult to understand why that ruling doesn't also cover the latest emails that presumably
are from Clinton's secretary's -or spouse- computer.
A reasonable conclusion must be the latest criminal investigation concerns not the finding
of these additional emails but the actual content of the emails. This matter therefore -far from
a pseudo-scandal- must take a very serious form if it causes the FBI at this acutely sensitive
time for the election to reopen criminal investigations.
OXIOXI20 -> unlywnted 29 Oct 2016 21:44
Comey informs all interested parties that the file on the criminal investigation is to be re-opened
because of new emails that have come to light.
NOT TRUE. That's the bullshit Trump is spewing. Comey has not re-opened the investigation,
he simply notified Congress he is looking at "newly obtained info" to determine what it is and
how should something be found) it might relate to a decision to re-open the investigation. Basically
he is simply covering his ass, although, he now screwed that up and has Justice on his ass also
calling for him to make a full disclosure. He will have to make public the info or possibly face
a Justice Department investigation of his agency. Major error on his part.
HerrPrincip -> sgwnmr 29 Oct 2016 22:38
How many "non-stories" did Hillary generate in her lifetime? 50? 100? 200? It seems to
me that wherever she goes, a "non-story" or two is sure to follow. This may be a non-story
that broke the camel's back. Yes, Virginia, you can politically die of one "non-story" too many.
pfox33 29 Oct 2016 22:13
Are they a banana republic? They are a great power, correct me if I'm wrong.
JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:15
It's bad enough that the 47 year old Jennifer Lopez, dressed in boots and suspenders is prancing
about on stage in Miami. But she brings onto the stage the almost 70 year old Hillary Clinton
who, as one of the worst speakers in political history, has the crowd silenced within seconds
as she rants about how "we're not going to let Donald Trump get away with it".
Her campaign is a fucking joke and they and the MSM are trying to sell this fetid pile
of shit to the whole world
antobojar -> JuicyMinion 29 Oct 2016 22:29
..Do you expect that declining empire, led by arrogant, corrupt and greedy "elite" can act
rationally..?
Look, who they chosen as a prospective saviours.. he he..
AveAtqueCave 29 Oct 2016 23:13
Obama, Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and Wall Street decided eight years ago she would
be president in 2017. Americans are fed up with that sort of bullshit.
irishguy 30 Oct 2016 0:33
The author is baffled as to why the FBI has intervened this late in the election by opening
an apparent pseudo-scandal case against Clinton? Here's my theory why:
Maybe it's all about managing the psychology of the the majority voters through the media.
Maybe this whole episode has been orchestrated by the establishment (who want Clinton in);
is designed to go nowhere and allow Clinton to ultimately claim she was vindicated in the whole
email affair while at the same time with the purpose of maintaining a perceived sense of tension
in the minds of the US public in the run up to election day – in the sense that the election result
is not perceived to be a foregone conclusion already.
However, when you take a step back, it's not realistic to think Trump has a chance of getting
in at this point. He's alienated too much of the electorate already.
But the majority voters need to be made feel they're doing something positive by averting the
danger of Trump through voting Clinton – not simply voting for Clinton as the establishment's
chosen candidate in a foregone conclusion.
HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 1:26
Hillary Nixon. I mean would you buy a used car from her?
JVRTRL -> HarryFlashman 30 Oct 2016 3:19
It depends who the customer is. The Clintons have always taken very good care of their biggest
money donors. For ordinary people, it would be a bad idea. For their connected donors, it's a
completely different reality. The dealership and the other employees would have the problem, not
the rich and connected customer.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, would pawn off the lemons on unsuspecting customers, loot the
dealership purely for his own benefit, somehow get a tax credit for his trouble, and brag to the
world about what a smart and ethical guy he is.
europeangrayling 30 Oct 2016 1:35
Looks to me like the FBI got done taken over by Putin. This Putin guy, he is everywhere. Pike
fishing on horseback in Siberia while banging some hot Russian gold medal gymnast and overthrowing
the US government and running the FBI now. Putin is on a whole new level, he is changing the game.
And a few days ago, I got a pizza with hamburger and mushroom, and I didn't like it as much, the
regular mushroom one was better, and I said 'f-ing Putin man'. This guy, he did it again, made
me question myself and order that hamburger, meddling in our democracy. It was still OK, I ate
it, but that's 20 bucks I could have spent on a much better regular mushroom instead of that Russian
hamburger crap. Or at least put some chicken on it. Putin man.
furminator 30 Oct 2016 1:53
Anyway Howard Dean, you know primal scream Dean, is saying on his twitter that Comney is on
the side of Putin. Yes the Director of the FBI is really a Russian stooge, a sleeper agent. Poor
Hillary, the FBI, which is controlled by the Justice Department, which is controlled by the Obama
White House, is out to get her coz Russia. She's the victim of a vast right and left wing conspiracy.
Henrychan 30 Oct 2016 2:31
John Pilger's latest article:
"Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education –
Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia – and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York
Times, the Washington Post.
These organisations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive
tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
And they love war.
While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless
women, including the right to life."
Clinton's attacks on Russia are deeply worrying. I have no doubt at all that she'll try
and impose a no fly zone in Syria, which will mean direct confrontation, risking an all out war.
This woman is a warmonger and she needs to be stopped.
Kess 30 Oct 2016 3:00
The media hasn't exactly cover itself in glory either. Throughout the nomination process Clinton
was given an incredibly easy ride. If the media (including the Guardian) had highlighted her issues
earlier then perhaps the DNC would'be been forced to nominate a candidate with a little more integrity,
and Trump wouldn't stand a chance.
BelieveItsTrue 30 Oct 2016 3:13
People, this whole thing is merely a diversion to move attention from corruption in
high places, onto Huma and Anthony Weiner. Comey's had to do something to move attention from
the fact that Obama lied to the people, he lied to Congress concerning not knowing about
Clinton's private e-mail arrangement and even used a pseudonym to connect with her. This is
public knowledge now and not speculation.
Of course HC has said publicise everything but she does not have to wait for the FBI to do
this, she could have done this to begin with, before she bleached her server, before evidence
was destroyed by the Democratic campaign (13 smart-phones) and lap tops destroyed by the FBI.
It is a croc and if you do not wake up to this, the world is lost.
Clinton will make sure that the NWO gains control. It is being implemented in the
background as all this is going. Many people are not the least bit interested in how their
children are being brainwashed, how borders have been dissolved, how Obama has been quietly
taking unilateral control of government. It seems that they will sit through the pantomime
that is this election enjoying every diversionary twist, then when Clinton is elected, they
will be unaware that the tentacles of the enemy of the people have penetrated every
compartment of government. Vote for Clinton and you are voting for a one world government.
There is a war going on and it is truly a battle between good and evil! God help the world.
by
Tyler Durden
Oct 28, 2016 3:22 PM
0
SHARES
In the latest stunning revelation in today's saga involving the FBI's second probe,
moments ago the
NYT reported
that the
new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into
Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized
electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to
a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina
. The bureau told Congress on Friday
that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case - one federal official
said they numbered in the thousands - potentially reigniting an issue that has
weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less
than two weeks before the election.
Until recently Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma
Abedin, who separated from Weiner recently after news emerged that Weiner had engaged in
an online affair with an underage girl
.
The F.B.I. told Congress that it had uncovered new emails related to the closed
investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton or her aides had mishandled classified
information, potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential
campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the
election.
One clue as to what the FBI may have uncovered comes courtesy of FOIAed Judicial
Watch email disclosures, revealed one month ago, according to which Hillary Clinton's
chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills, had received classified national
security information through one of two or three personal, unsecured email accounts she
regularly used to communicate with Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
Approximately 10 percent of Abedin's emails released through Judicial Watch Freedom
of Information Act requests were addressed to one of Mills' various personal email
addresses. As
WND reported at the time
,
several were found to contain such highly
sensitive material that the State Department redacted 100 percent of the content pages,
marking many pages with a bold stamp reading "PAGE DENIED
."
Of the more than 160 emails in the latest Judicial Watch release, some 110
emails – two-thirds of the total – were forwarded by Abedin to two personal addresses
she controlled
. The Washington Times reported in August 2015 that the State
Department had admitted to a federal judge that Abedin and Mills used personal email
accounts to conduct government business in addition to Clinton's private
clintonemail.com to transact State Department business.
In a curious twist, one heavily redacted email, dated May 15, 2009, was sent by the
infamous Doug Band (who until today was the primary source of headaches for Hillary
Clinton due to his role as head of the Clinton Foundation-linked Teneo consulting firm
whose recently leaked confidential memo exposed the fund flows involving Bill Clinton),
to Mills at a personal address and to Huma Abedin at her State Department address.
Band was forwarding to Mills and Abedin an email request from an associate who was
seeking a State Department position in Charleston, South Carolina. Attached was a letter
that the office-seeker had first sent to Bill Clinton containing the office-seeker's
resume . In the email Band was making a State Department job request on behalf of a
Clinton Foundation and/or Teneo-related person.
The email from Band was completely redacted, except for a salutation and first
sentence. The letter the office-seeker had sent to President Clinton, as well as the
office-seeker's résumé, was redacted except for a phrase that reads, "Well organized,
driven professional."
A second email dated May 15, 2009, was sent by Abedin from her State Department email
to her personal email, presumably
[email protected]
. Abedin apparently was archiving in her personal
email account an email Hillary Clinton sent her from Clinton's private email server at
[email protected]. Abedin was asked to print out attachments to an email Mills
sent via a private address the previous day to Clinton involving "timetables and
deliverables" for her review via Alec Ross, a technology policy expert who then held the
title of senior adviser for innovation to Secretary Clinton.
The two pages of timetables and deliverables attached to the email were 100 percent
redacted, with "PAGE DENIED" stamped across the first redacted page.
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON HILLARY CLINTON'S BAD JUDGMENT
"Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be
far better off without h
im. I only worry for the country in that Hillary
Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to
highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It's just
another example of Hillary Clinton's bad judgment. It is possible that our country
and its security have been greatly compromised by this.
" - Donald J. Trump
and then, previously with this August 3, 2015 tweet:
It came out that Huma Abedin knows all about Hillary's private
illegal emails. Huma's PR husband, Anthony Weiner, will tell the world.
Well, maybe not tell the world, but certainly drag Hillary into another scandal just
as she appeared certain to win the election with less than 2 weeks until D-Day.
"... The revelations that - as Secretary of State - Clinton had committed such a huge security gaffe was quickly picked up on - and has since extensively been used by - Republican candidate Donald Trump, as an example of how Clinton is unfit for the presidency. ..."
"... "This is a change election: people (even those who support Obama) are not interested in the status quo. Therefore they want a candidate who will make change, actually fight the status quo." ..."
"... It is believed they will continue to be dripped out ahead of the presidential election on November 8. Apart from the embarrassment over the email account, the leaks show Clinton changing her position on free trade agreements. ..."
"... The question is not whether or not Donald or Hillary are fit to be US President. The question should be is the United States fit to exist in a civilized world? The answer is; not in its current form! Perhaps if the US returned to following its Constitution, but not otherwise! ..."
Whoever advised US Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton that she could use private
emails while in office should have been "drawn and quartered," according to the latest batch of emails
of the campaign chairman John Podesta, published by WikiLeaks on October 27.Clinton ran into huge
trouble when it was revealed that - while Secretary of State - she had been using insecure private
email accounts based on non-government servers, exposing the US administration to hacking or surveillance
from foreign nations.
In the latest cache of emails, one of Clinton's advisers, Neera Tanden wrote to Podesta asking: "Do
we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and
quartered? Like whole thing is f****** insane."
One of the 'Podesta Emails' released by Wikileaks An investigation by the FBI concluded that 110
e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information
at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top
Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight
contained Confidential information.
The revelations that - as Secretary of State - Clinton had committed such a huge security
gaffe was quickly picked up on - and has since extensively been used by - Republican candidate Donald
Trump, as an example of how Clinton is unfit for the presidency.
Apology Enough?
Another chain of emails delivered Clinton's advisers' verdict on her round of interviews with
the media apologizing for the email gaffe and saying: "As I look back at it now, even though it was
allowed, I should have used two accounts. That was a mistake. I'm sorry about that. I take responsibility."
Tanden responded: "She rocked it!" in a suggestion that the plan had been to admit culpability
personally - an honest appeal for empathy to kill the political furore.
Another adviser, Jennifer Palmieri replied: "I actually cried a little bit with relief."
However, John Podesta replied that Clinton may not have gone far enough and that Trump had
found her weak spot. "No good deed goes unpunished. Press takeaway was the whine of but 'she really
didn't apologize to the American people' I am beginning to think Trump is on to something," Podesta
wrote
Too 'Establishment'?
Meanwhile, another email - also from Tanden - show the sense of vulnerability within the Clinton
camp: her need to appeal to voters who conceive of her as being part of the establishment and - in
particular - part of the Obama set who promised much, but delivered little. "So if she attacks [Trump]
from the right (say on taxes), she will sound establishment/centrist and that hurts her. She needs
to reaffirm her liberal credentials, not just her doer credentials," Tanden wrote.
"This is a change election: people (even those who support Obama) are not interested in the
status quo. Therefore they want a candidate who will make change, actually fight the status quo."
Wikileaks has gradually been releasing more than 30,000 emails hacked from the account belonging
to Podesta since October 7, 2016, giving an insight into the background thinking within her team.
It is believed they will continue to be dripped out ahead of the presidential election on
November 8. Apart from the embarrassment over the email account, the leaks show Clinton changing
her position on free trade agreements.
The question is not whether or not Donald or Hillary are fit to be US President. The question
should be is the United States fit to exist in a civilized world? The answer is; not in its current
form! Perhaps if the US returned to following its Constitution, but not otherwise!
"... A former [key] IT staffer at the State Department who oversaw technology for senior officials invoked his Fifth Amendment right in a sworn deposition on Monday when asked about Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
John Bentel is one of the key future of "private email server" scandal, the manager who squashed
concerns of other IOt personnel about legality of the so called "bathroom server".
October 24, 2016
A former [key] IT staffer at the State Department who oversaw technology for senior officials invoked
his Fifth Amendment right in a sworn deposition on Monday when asked about Hillary Clinton's private
email server.
Bentel answered over 90 questions that were submitted him to by Judicial Watch, the conservative
watchdog group that has been leading the charge for more information from Clinton and her associates
regarding her email server. Bentel was ordered by a federal judge to answer the questions similarly
to how Clinton had been.
Judicial Watch says that the topics of the questions they submitted to Bentel included whether
Clinton was paying Bentel's legal fees or had offered him other compensation.
"On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth
Amendment rights," Bentel answered each question.
Bentel invoking the Fifth Amendment "highlights the disturbing implication that criminal acts
took place related to the Clinton email and our Freedom of Information Act requests," Judicial
Watch President Tom Fitton said Monday.
"... Clinton talked of the need to have "both a public and a private position" on controversial issues. The former first lady also said her family's wealth had made her "kind of far removed" from the problems facing the middle class. ..."
"... one of the leaked Podesta emails appeared to show that the Clinton campaign had been in contact with the Justice Department during an open records court case in which it was not a party. The Trump campaign said the email "shows a level of collusion which calls into question the entire investigation into her private server." ..."
"... Trump has also seized on an email that revealed Clinton in one speech said that terrorism is "not a threat to us as a nation," clarifying, "it is not going to endanger our economy or our society, but it is a real threat." ..."
"... In "a speech made behind closed doors, crooked Hillary Clinton said that terrorism was not a threat - quote, 'not a threat to the nation,' " Trump said during a rally on Monday evening in Pennsylvania. ..."
On Tuesday, one of the leaked Podesta emails appeared to show that the Clinton campaign had
been in contact with the Justice Department during an open records court case in which it was not
a party. The Trump campaign said the email "shows a level of collusion which calls into question
the entire investigation into her private server."
Trump has also seized on an email that revealed Clinton in one speech said that terrorism
is "not a threat to us as a nation," clarifying, "it is not going to endanger our economy or our
society, but it is a real threat."
In "a speech made behind closed doors, crooked Hillary Clinton said that terrorism was not
a threat - quote, 'not a threat to the nation,' " Trump said during a rally on Monday evening in
Pennsylvania.
"During one of the secret speeches - amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the
internet - Hillary admitted that ISIS could infiltrate with the refugees," he added, referring to
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "Then why is she letting so many people into our country?"
Some of the emails released have no bearing on the campaign at all.
In one message, Podesta offers advice for cooking risotto (don't add the water all at once). In
others, the former guitarist for pop-punk band Blink-182, Tom DeLonge, suggests that Podesta
meet with a variety
of individuals, seemingly
to discuss UFOs.
The release comes at a time when the intelligence community is casting doubt on WikiLeaks and
its motives.
And WikiLeaks makes it official, Obama knew about Hilary's email, of
course he knew. So a bald-faced lie from the president of the United
States to millions of Americans:
"... Marshall's central importance to the Clintons' political operations was realized earlier this year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall's State Department emails. ..."
"... At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol. ..."
"... The emails, which appear to be from Marshall's Gmail account, span the period from March 2015 through June 2016. ..."
Marshall's central importance to the Clintons' political operations was realized earlier this
year by Citizens United. The conservative watchdog group
filed a federal lawsuit for Marshall's State Department emails.
At State, Marshall served as chief of protocol from 2009 to 2013. In that role, she helped the
State Department and White House manage issues related to diplomatic protocol.
She entered the Clinton sphere during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, working as a
special assistant to Hillary Clinton. She later worked on Clinton's senatorial and presidential campaigns,
helping lead fundraising efforts.
The DC Leaks emails appear to be authentic.
The emails, which appear to be from Marshall's Gmail account, span the period from March 2015
through June 2016.
"... So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny! ..."
"... I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there? ..."
I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle
bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law
and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there?
"... Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends! ..."
Everyone is proposing those toxic DNC emails that roiled the Democrat National
Convention this weekend were hacked by Russia. Which I actually do not doubt.
But please understand, to hack into a system someone needs to be sloppy and
"invite" the hackers in! So how is it that HRC emails and DNC emails were both
exposed to the voters during this election year?
Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from
the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services.
[64] It is known that hackers in Russia were aware of
Clinton's non-public email address as early as 2011 . [71]
It is also known that Secretary Clinton and her staff were aware of
hacking attempts in 2011, and were worried about them. [72]
In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned
Clinton's Chappaqua server at least twice , in August and in December
2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton,
although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com
. [64] During 2014, Clinton's server was the target
of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea.
Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five
such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three
months prior to that, no such software had been installed.
Now we know for a fact the "personal" side of Clinton's electronic communication
was to pave the way for her second run at the presidential election. In fact,
the server originated in 2008 to support her first run. Clinton would not want
"Personal Political" emails to become public – for many reasons! (especially
to hide any nexus between
Bill's speaking fees and State Department Policy decisions ).
Everyone knows Politicians set up one account for "official business" and
one for political business – a separation required by federal law. So if HRC
was in communication with politicians and the DNC, it was through her personal
server!
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private
commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in
regular contact from her personal account . We also assess that
Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a
large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal
e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and
receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile
actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.
Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email
server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal"
(read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed
everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends!
"... "There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms." ..."
"... Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company. ..."
"... Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal , a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton. ..."
"... "We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12. ..."
"... "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. ..."
"... Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website. ..."
"... Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River. ..."
"... A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device. ..."
"... Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve " in their IT offerings. ..."
And when Platte River became the latest name to emerge in the Clinton e-mail
controversy, the company maintained its silence - until last week, when it hired
a crisis-communications expert to defend against political innuendo, death threats
and allegations that it stored her e-mail in the bathroom of a downtown Denver
loft.
"There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored
in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's
server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any
bathrooms."
Hillary Clinton's decision to have an employee set up a
private e-mail server in her New York home in 2008 has plagued the former
secretary of state's presidential campaign.
The FBI is investigating whether any of her private e-mails contained sensitive
information and should have been classified - and not stored on a computer inside
her house.
Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting
hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management
company.
"There are a lot of people you could hire, and they would set up (an e-mail
server) and run it. That's not hard. But there's no real reason to do that,"
Burt said. "The main motivator is you're nervous about what is in your e-mail.
It's a control thing."
Boian said Platte River had nothing to do with Clinton's private home server.
Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months
after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after
Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his
e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton.
"We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use
industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in
New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it
up Aug. 12.
Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he
said.
"The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage
the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013.
Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation.
And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said.
Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information
technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance,
virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an
archive of its old website.
Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder
Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte
River.
A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which
makes company data available online so employees can access software and services
from any device.
Today, Platte touts itself as a full-service IT management firm.
It also lists Suazo, its CEO, and Brent Allshouse, its chief financial officer,
as co-founders. According to
industry publication CRN, Platte River expected to grow to $6 million in
sales in 2014, from $4.7 million a year earlier.
But as early as 2006, Tom Welch was listed as a partner, the same title given
to Suazo and Allshouse.
Before the Clinton scandal blew up, Platte River Networks welcomed attention.
David DeCamillis joined the company in 2008 and, as its director of business
development, became its public face, using news releases to promote industry
awards and appearing on
Fox31 Denver's
"Good Day Colorado" as a tech expert.
In 2012, Platte River was
named Ingram Micro's Rainmaker of the Western Region, an honor that California
technology distributor gives its fastest-growing business partners based on
revenue, peer-to-peer leadership and use of Ingram Micro's cloud services.
That same year, the company won the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's
Small Business of the Year award. The award is vetted by the chamber and
independent judges, said Abram Sloss, executive director of the chamber's small-business
development center.
"We really look for companies that have a good chance for a strong uptick
and have solid growth," Sloss said. While the chamber can offer advice to members
who suddenly are thrown into the media spotlight - for good or bad - Sloss said
he has not heard from the company.
"Gosh, if I was the company who the Clintons hired, it'd be hard not to say,
'We are a trusted provider that one of the influential families in the United
States hired,' " Sloss said.
Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was
named, for the fourth consecutive year, to
CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are "
ahead of the curve" in their IT offerings.
In June, it moved to a 12,000-square-foot building at 5700 Washington St.
A photo on Platte River's
blog shows 30 people posing in the new building.
Platte River did not make DeCamillis, now its vice president of sales and
marketing, available for comment.
But DeCamillis
told The Washington Post that no one at the company had expected this kind
of attention, which he said included death threats that caused the company to
pull employee information from its website.
If they had, he said, "we would never have taken it on."
Platte River Networks timeline
2002: Platte River Networks founded
2004: Moves to 2955 Inca St., Unit 2K
Feb. 1, 2013: Hillary Clinton's last day as secretary of state
June 2013: Hired to manage Clinton-family e-mail server, which
is moved from their Chappaqua, N.Y., home to a secure data center in New
Jersey
June 18, 2015: Hosts
open house for new headquarters at 4700 Washington St.
Aug. 11, 2015: FBI asks for Clinton's e-mail server
Aug. 12, 2015: Delivers Clinton's server to the FBI from New
Jersey
"... Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements. ..."
"... His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus? ..."
"... Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) ..."
"... Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes. ..."
"... Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen? ..."
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme
is such bullshit.
You used the wrong tense. It's not "would be". It's "are". There are
"little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified.
Right now. Actually in prison.
She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared
to see.
Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean
you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements
for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not
use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys
on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected
printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements.
Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified
stuff to his journalist girlfriend
His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding
of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance,
and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough
to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?
but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage
of the traffic
Please cite where the statute states the percentage of allowable leaks.
and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS
server had she been using that
First, government servers are regularly scanned for classified, so it
would have been caught long before there were thousands of classified in
her email. Second, the unclassified DoS server is far, far, far more secure
than her basement server. For example, they don't have default VPN keys
installed.
What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about
Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light.
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. But shouting "Benghazi!!!!"
does a great job getting people like you to turn off their critical thinking
and accept this week's excuse.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:31PM (
#52778125 )
Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
Comey spent hours in front of Congress explaining, very patiently,
over and over, that the reason he could not recommend prosecution against
Clinton is because all of the suspected crimes required proof of intent,
which the FBI did not have.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the
bolded section :
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified
information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That
is true?
Comey : There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey : She used multiple devices during the four years of her
term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned
to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey : No. We found work related email, thousands, that were
not returned.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted
work related emails from her personal account.
Comey : That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work
related emails in - on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or
when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt
that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email
system.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the
emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content
individually?
Comey : No.
Gowdy : Well, in the interest of time and because I have a
plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more
of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat.
False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey : Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence
of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy : Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey : That is right?
Gowdy : Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job
you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of
a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the
public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction
that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You
would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also - intent.
You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started,
when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified
or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably,
under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries
or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should
have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information.
You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United
States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends
is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson.
He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept
the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress
because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office,
thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were
classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked
and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the
destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence
of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely
do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code
section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on
this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial
evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove,
specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent
for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing
to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email
scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track
justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That
if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information
you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion
to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today
is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to,
the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently
than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:50PM (
#52777831 )
Powell used an aol account. He did NOT put a private server in his house!
Same for Rice. Powell used it for non-state NON-classified business.
Hillary has lied so many times about this server, is is clear to any
hones observer that she was hiding activities of corruption with the Clinton
foundation and did not want FOIA to discover her activities.
Hillary was supposed to have government archivists sort through the mails,
not her personal attorneys. That was a violation of the federal records
act.
She had classified information on the server, despite assertions that
she did not- caught in another lie. She said all work related mails were
turned over. Another lie- the FBI found thousands of work related mails
not turned over, including classified.
Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email
server was that she wasn't secure enough with it.
My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:13PM (
#52778643 )
1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was
vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking
office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files
were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no
clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only
about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of
tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:24PM (
#52778703 )
Hillary Clinton's IT guy purchased an MS Exchange hosting contract from
Platte River. The standard package came with a periodic backup to a Datto
appliance, which takes snapshots of the Windows disk image several times
a day. The appliance copies the snapshot to Datto's data center in real
time. You can erase or even destroy the Windows machine drives and still
use the snapshots to restore the disks to the snapshot of the time and date
of your chosing.
The FBI confiscated the appliance from Platte River and seized the server
from Datto. They have all the emails she sent and received since the start
of her State Department tenure.
Hillary Clinton co-mingled personal and official government communications
on her private email server. All of those communications are subject to
the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Her personal emails ceased to be personal when she co-mingled them with
official government communications. HRC and her lawyers were not authorized
to decide what is relevant to FRA and FOIA and what is not.
HRC and her lawyers deleted 30,000 or so emails that are not recoverable
- therefore she is in violation of both the FRA and FOIA.
HRC should be, at the very least, in front of a jury to answer for her
actions.
I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either
ignorant, or disingenuous.
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested
from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print
out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away
metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including
(by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.
FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were
NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those
that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know.
Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing
which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of
thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department
emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?
That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing
whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's
the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying
evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and
they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over
ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant"
documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even
criminal charges.
Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the
server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel
until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising
here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but
because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating
evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever).
If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys
would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.
Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried
among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And
if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand,
I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want
to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the
destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy
paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place.
But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like
we'll ever know, though, does it?
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they
were requested from the House as part of an official investigation.
She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably
to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.)
In other words, she willingly destroyed information she was required
to hand over.
The full Headers and all Metadata are part of the Record and part of
the E-mail; If you are requested to hand over the e-mails: you have no right
to exclude or remove headers, even if your standard e-mail software does
not normally display the headers when you are reading the message.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:10PM (
#52778941 )
A: "But anyone could hack in and see her emails, it's totally unsecure!"
B: "She used BleachBit."
A: "That proves she had something to hide!"
Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server
and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server,
it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting
e-mail messages about yoga classes.
Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered
an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen?
"... Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. ..."
"... The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department. ..."
"... It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons. ..."
"... A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? ..."
"... I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. ..."
Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is
the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer.
You can always tell when a politician lies; their lips are moving.
DLivesInTexas
"The arrangement, while it appears unusual, was and is acceptable
and legal, according to the State Department."
The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely
hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed
or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by
the State Department.
It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked
previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack
of transparency.
Genny G
Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons.
StrongHarm
A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? Author should
correct title.
I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how
Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity
for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and
liberal Washington. As a conservative myself, what I detest about the
woman most is not how she affects republicans, but how she affects her own
supporters. She claims to be 'looking out for the little guy' and minorities
so she can get votes, but when the cameras aren't rolling, she's doing business
with corrupt corporations and trying to live like a queen. A lot of politicians
are dishonest, but she really takes the cake.
Yeah. the first image I got when I read that headline was the scene in Breaking Bad when a
phone rings, Walter opens a drawer and has to look through about a dozen phones to find the one
that is ringing.
The most significant thing we learn is that "The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail
content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail
address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server."
Americans must be (or are at least expected to be) the most schizophrenic of all people on
the earth. They are not only supposed to believe that the FBI/NSA (the former Marcy Wheeler, I
believe, thinks is also spying on Americans' emails) cannot locate a copy of the deleted emails,
but that the FBI can't get a warrant to get the 'deleted' emails from Google. Who on earth, on
any other day, or in reference to anything else, actually believes that an email deleted from
a Gmail account is simultaneously deleted from Google's servers & archives?
Even the Hardy Boys would have conducted a harder hitting investigation. What ever happened
to the vaunted tough-as-nails FBI? Talk about pulling your punches. Yeesh!
"... The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes. ..."
"... The Times story was published on March 2. ..."
"... I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion. ..."
"... A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate. ..."
The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview.
The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes.
"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ------ Indicated he believed he had an 'oh s--t'
moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from PRN server
and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system
containing Clinton;s e-mails," the FBI notes released on Friday stated.
This is crazy. 3 weeks after NYT publish Clinton email
server story, there was a big wipe of her emails conducted
BleachBit is a special computer software that is designed to "prevent recovery" of files so
that, as House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said last week, "even God can't read them."
After the conclusion of the investigation in July, the FBI Director James Comey recommended no
charges against Clinton but added that the Democratic presidential nominee was "extremely
careless" in handling classified material.
The fact that the FBI had this info but excluded it from their deliberations on whether or not to
indict, then did a Labor Day weekend dump when most Americans won't be paying attention, is pretty
conclusive evidence that the FBI under Comey & Lynch is actively working to shield Clinton.
..painfull to realize we have all be played for years by the democrats and yes republicans and large
corporate businesses. Time to take back our control of ourselves and choices, real choices, and not
sell our votes for a freaking free cell phone or promises of free this, free that.....
Actually if you dig deeper you will find that both parties are VERY corrupt. The only way to get
things done is to make deals and cover for each other. Our political system has totally gone amuck.
Actually, I have... and the RNC is fairly clean. The party learned a lesson with Nixon. Sure people
may not have liked the Bush's, but at least they were fairly honest. And Reagan was an awesome President.
Also, Trump can't be bought and is a political outsider.
The DNC and DemocRATs, haven't learned their lesson yet... Slick Willy was almost fully impeached
(House not Senate impeached)... but DemocRATs played party politics and let him go. We ALL know he
was guilty and repeatedly lied under oath (perjury and obstruction)... something you or I would go
to prison for.
Well said. And it fact, as someone commented above, this entire political process & "election" is
little more than a charade. (A bad one at that.)
...Don't be too surprised if/when, sometime in the few weeks, some sort of (manufactured/contrived)
'national emergency' develops, necessitating the 'temporary suspension' of: a) the election process;
b) the Bill of Rights; or c) the entire US Constitution -- and imposition of martial law -- 'Just
until Order can be Restored.' (Or some such bunch of gibberish.)
Given what we've seen over the
last 7+ years, it's darn near predictable: Americans should anticipate an "October Surprise" the
likes of which the world has never seen.
IMPORTANT: when writing "HiLlARy" be sure to use a lowercase L (l), not an uppercase i (I), so it
appears as "hillary" to internet search engines and won't be censored. All corporate media, including
Google, Facebook, and Twitter are filtering the unique word "hiliary." You must spell "hillary" correctly,
so that means using a lowercase L in place of the uppercase i in HiLlARy.
The twitter screen cap clearly shows, "PRN held a conference call
with President Clinton's staff"??
Then, the person who's name is redacted, who was evidently interviewed by the FBI, "deleted the
Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server...
... and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing
Clinton's e-mails"
Kind of unclear, since the conference call was with PRESIDENT Clinton's staff, is this PRESIDENT
Clinton's archive mailbox, on the PRN server containing PRESIDENT Clinton's emails???
Thanks, so in Dec of 2014, Cheryl Mills told 'him' to make changes to email retention setting for
Clinton's emails, and after the PRN conference call, 3/25/15, 'he' realized that 'he' didn't do what
Cheryl told 'him' to do in Dec of 2014, so 'he' did what Cheryl told 'him' to do, 3+ months late,
and wiped 'his' butt with BleachBit on some exported .PST files 'he' created??
Somehow it doesn't
look very much like the headline of this story makes it out to be??
Oh and there is the small minor point that on Nov. 26, 2014 President Obama signs into law an updated
Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government
address. Then comes the Cheryl Mills directive to change retention settings. THEN he/she remembers
didn't follow orders ("the Oh S***" moment) so deletes all pst files plus back ups. NOTHING TO SEE
HERE!!!! /sarcasm
A reminder, the data this firm had in its possession had state secrets including 22-Top Secret-Special
Access Programs. None of these firms had clearance for such. Wonder if everyone whose fingerprints
were on these files got vetted by the FBI and or Intel to determine if they read what they had in
their hands if for no other reason than curiosity?
We are assuming that the server in PRN's management had 'all' Hillary's emails on it, but has there
been proof shown to the public that the server in New Jersey had 'all' Hillary's emails?
The 7
email chains, with 22 TS/SAP information containing emails seem to be from 2011 and 2012, with the
2012 very likely being the New Years Holliday.
Back in June, WSJ reported that the majority seemed to be discussions about a planned CIA drone
strike in Pakistan, that did not end up happening, and it started because the CIA let the US diplomat
in Islamabad know, a day or so before Christmas, so State could weigh in.
Well said. We, the People, may very well never know the details on this batch of state secrets...nothing
new about the Intel folks being tight-lipped. Nothing I've read on-line has given any info on what
the SAP email contained...but, T.S./SAP is the most rigidly controlled/guarded state secret and I
doubt any will become public knowledge. Any way this Hillary state secrets compromise is sliced,
it is a violation of state secrets protocol in my opinion. From the gist of the FBI notes provided
so far, there was little or no effort by the FBI personnel to 'dig' into 'intent,' thus glossing
over a specific state secret statutes. Nor did the FBI team devote much time to 'chasing' the means
by which these 22-T.S./SAP jumped the gap from State's closed-loop secure email system to Hillary's
rogue system...why not?
Lastly, I wonder if anyone from the Intel folks sat-in and or participated
in Hillary's 'walk-in-the-park soft-ball' not under oath chat with the FBI...the Intel folks got
'hurt' badly with Hillary's compromise of the 22 SAP in my opinion.
Many of today's cable news talking heads are mentioning the planned Pakistan drone strike discussions
as if it is now a forgone conclusion. Those of us who don't pay WSJ can read the story from other
sources...
"Some of those emails were then sent by Clinton's aides to her personal email account, officials
told the Journal.
The vaguely worded messages didn't mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the targets, the
Journal reported.
The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials
had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials
told the newspaper. The still-secret emails are still a part of the ongoing FBI investigation.
One exchange reported by the Journal came before Christmas in 2011 when the U.S. ambassador sent
a note about a planned strike that sparked an email chain between Clinton's senior advisers. Officials
said the exchange was clear those involved in the email were having discussions because they were
away from their offices and didn't have access to a classified computer."
I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol
because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying
"I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That
is plain B.S. in my opinion.
And, yet, Hillary's fawning faithful followers are buying the ruse.
Such rationalization of compromising state secrets infuriates men and women in the field who can
die (Amb. Stevens and the men who rushed to their own deaths to help protect Stevens) because of
such bureaucratic idiocy in my opinion beginning with Hillary and her immediate minions merits the
wrath of We, the People not admiration...some of whom questioned Hillary's email mess early-on such
as Amadin who believed Hillary's email stuff was 'outrageous!"
"Outrageous" is an understatement on steroids in my opinion that would get anyone else prison time.
Our Amb. to Pakistan initiated these 'chains', because CIA 'requested input'; those requests seems
to have been off the secure system. The drone operators were not in danger.
If the CIA had pulled
the trigger, it would have before State gave the input CIA asked for, if they traveled to secure
lines.
This is one of the reasons the CIA is dropping out of drone strikes; moving forwards the Defense
Dept. will pull the trigger.
The argument between State and CIA over these discussions does not seem to have started because
of Hillary, and it doesn't seem to have ended because of Hillary. It is only because of the FOIA
disclosures that we know they seem to have agreed to disagree on this subject.
A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull
the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email
un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who
compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate.
Did you read the ViceNews article about the Vaughn Index they received on the 7 'chains' that contain
the 22 emails? You do realize that in at least one chain, a news agency article link, and possible
quote, is being forwarded, and the article is likely the source of the TS/SAP information, don't
you? Even after it is leaked to someone like the NYT or Guardian, a TS/SAP document is still considered
TS/SAP by the NSA, right? Even after everyone on the planet who is interested has read the information,
discussing it on the non-secure system is considered against procedures, right?
"A large number of emails at the center of the Clinton FBI probe appear to have been between U.S.
diplomats in Pakistan and the State Department in Washington D.C. discussing planned drone strikes."
http://www.inquisitr.com/31881... ... "The emails were sent in 2011 and 2012 through a private
server and contained information that allowed the State Department input into a potential drone strike,
where they had the opportunity to voice either opposition or support for the planned strike."
Based on the The Inquisitor article, and the ViceNews article, 8 emails seem to be regarding the
CIA drone strike, and one of the remaining 3 chains was about the news article.
I still remain unsympathetic to anyone caught-up in this compromise of state secrets. Too many lessor
mortals have been severely punished for a lot less and the powerful escape any consequences for Hillary's
mess. The RULE OF LAW is being 'shaded' if not outright lost in this mess!
William Card > iRon Madden
Hillary is a walking psyop. NOTHING about her is real.
Chez Kiva > Chez Kiva • 20 hours ago
A memory lapse? I don't think so. Careless? Yes, careless to a fault. People died. Agents
were outed.
And, the entire thing is a ruse to keep we the Americans from discussing the real infraction,
which is that these CIA players were involved in destroying Libya and simultaneously causing
the Syrian civil war. It wasn't an 'embassy' it was a safe house for all the lettered covert
operatives and arms dealers. That's why she believes here role as 'guardian of State secrets'
is safe.
Mark this "Classified:" We are deliberately involved in destroying 7 countries mid-east in a
row. Iran (read nuclear) comes next!- General Wesley Clark.
CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey > Fred_Shrinka
"Accidently" used BLEACHBIT "guaranteed unrecoverable" Secure Data Erase program?
Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge.
Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server
Notable quotes:
"... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."
"... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence
of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."
Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address
because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary
of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that
emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email
address."
The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the
existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."
"some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address." I have
no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does
their spam filter work if it doesn't reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don't
have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe
they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.
"Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files." He was
told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn't be deleted and delete only means delete if
they can't be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the
staples.
The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal
discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain
that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the
elite because no one dares look.
fresno dan
Now we find out a laptop was "lost" in the mail.
Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary's handwriting…
Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
"The sh!t has hit the fan."
Higgs Boson
What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big "nothingburger".
The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from
Putin's army of hackers. It's been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.
Now go vote for Her, because "love [of what, they don't specify] Trumps hate."
"During [Sysadmin's] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with
[Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton's tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be
surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton's personal server." (Page
28)
Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined;
rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on
career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.
Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of
sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations." (Page 26)
She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall
anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received
at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging
from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained
classified information." (Page 26)
"State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained
the letter "H" in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of
the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated
they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton's immediate
aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware
of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at the State or when it
became public knowledge.
Possible Censorship
There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January
21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton
did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days
where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting
Clinton's personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy.
FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton's e-mail production could
include user deletion prior to PRN's transfer of Clinton's e-mails for review…" (Page 27)
Security Threats
"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor
exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to
belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged
in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during
her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used
Tor Software" (Page 29)
"The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton's 13 mobile devices which potentially
were used to send e-mails using Clinton's clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the
FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise.
Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially
were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)
"Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails
sent to Clinton's account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…
Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account
of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied
to the email [Redacted] stating, "Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!"
… Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user's device may have been infected,
and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in
Russia." (page 31)
Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.
However email tag data works, her name appears as "H" because she isn't using her typical
address. The address I have seen H appear in is [email protected].
Something about the contact data shows her as H.
There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the
email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, "Let me know what penance
I owe you."
I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to
field.
"Friendly" ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don't care for all that gobbledygook,
and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment
field.
If this is not obstruction of justice then what is: " ...Representative
Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs.
Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015."
Notable quotes:
"... These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door, ..."
"... Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\ ..."
According to the F.B.I., in December 2014 a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that
housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account. The company, Platte River
Networks, apparently never followed those instructions. On March 2, 2015, The New York Times
reported that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary
of state. Two days later, the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi,
Libya, and Mrs. Clinton's response to them, told the technology firms associated with the email
account that they had to retain "all relevant documents" related to its inquiry.
Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files. The F.B.I.
said Mrs. Clinton was unaware of the deletions.
The F.B.I. said it was later able to find some of the emails, but did not say how many emails
were deleted, or whether they were included in the 60,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said she sent
and received while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
But Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his
committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015.
He said he planned to seek answers from Mrs. Clinton about the deletions. "These were not
Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the
largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security
records that just went out the door," Mr. Chaffetz said. "It's a very black-and-white order.
There's no wiggle room."
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I.
documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\
The F.B.I. released only small portions of its thick files on the Clinton investigation, and
Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee,
accused the F.B.I. of withholding key documents - including many unclassified ones - from public
view.
The selective release, he said, produced "an incomplete and possibly misleading picture of the
facts without the other unclassified information that is still locked away from the public and
even most congressional staff."
That means that Justin Cooper has full access to all Hillary email information, which is illegal.
Notable quotes:
"... Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. ..."
"... another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry. ..."
Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary
Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices
and syncing them to the server.Top aides Huma Abedin and Monica Hanley, as well as
another person
whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry.
According to Abedin and Hanley, Clinton's old devices would often disappear to parts "unknown
once she transitioned to a new device."
Cooper, according to the report, "did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile
devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."
The FBI said it uncovered multiple instances
of phishing or spear-phishing emails sent to Clinton's account, including one
that appeared to be sent from another State official's account. Clinton
responded to the email by trying to confirm that the person actually sent it,
adding, "I was worried about opening it!"
But in another incident, the FBI noted that Abedin emailed someone (whose
name is redacted) conveying Clinton's concern that "someone [was] hacking into
her email" after receiving an email from a "known [redacted] associate
containing a link to a website with pornographic material."
"There is no additional information as to why Clinton was concerned about
someone hacking into her e-mail account, or if the specific link referenced by
Abedin was used as a vector to infect Clinton's device," the FBI's report
states, and after roughly two lines of redacted text goes on to note that "open
source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have
been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers
overseas, including one in Russia."
The former secretary of state's email server was in fact a series of three servers used over a
period of time from approximately 2007 to 2015, beginning with an Apple server installed by a
former aide to her husband.
That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former
IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, which was then supplanted in 2013 by a
server installed by a vendor, Denver-based Platte River Networks.
That server, housed in a data
center in New Jersey, was voluntarily handed over to the FBI in 2015.
The report said there was "no additional information" about the email or more about why Clinton was
concerned about the hack, or whether the link Abedin referred to in her email was "used as a vector
to infect Clinton's device."
Following roughly two lines of redacted text, the report states, "Open
source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information
would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."
In its investigation, the FBI turned up 13 total mobile devices connected to two different phone
numbers that had potentially been used to send emails from Clinton's personal account, including
eight email-capable BlackBerrys that she used during her tenure as secretary of state. Lawyers for
Clinton said in late February of 2016 that they were unable to find any of the 13 devices identified
by the bureau.
The FBI also identified five iPads "associated with Clinton" that were potentially used to send
emails from Clinton's private system. The bureau managed to obtain three of those iPads, none of
which contained any potentially classified information.
As she transitioned between mobile devices, two people interviewed by the FBI said the whereabouts
of Clinton's previous devices would "frequently become unknown." One aide to former President Bill
Clinton who also helped the family set up the initial personal email server in their Chappaqua, New
York, home said that on two occasions he "destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them
in half or hitting them with a hammer."
"... The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server. ..."
But weeks after the Times published its story, the FBI's investigation found that an individual,
whose name was redacted, used an online program called BleachBit to delete a file on the server containing
Clinton's emails.
The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from
longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server.
Speaking to the FBI on May 3, 2016, "[redacted] indicated he believed he had an 'oh shit'
moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN
server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server
system containing Clinton's e-mails."
"... Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office ..."
"... "[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates. ..."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from
her private server during her time in office, according to newly-released FBI documents on the investigation
into her mishandling of classified information.
"[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's
[mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report
indicates.
On other occasions, a staffer would destroy Clinton's old mobile phones "by breaking them in half
or hitting them with a hammer," the FBI documents reveal.
When reviewing an email from October of 2012, for example, Clinton said that
while she did not recall the message specifically, she described an individual
involved with the communication as "someone who was well acquainted with
handling classified information" and "described him as someone she held in high
regard."
She said she "relied on" the individual, whose name is redacted in
the FBI notes, and she had "no concern over his judgement and ability to handle
classified information."
Any reasonable investigator would instantly understand that she is trying to sell him the
Brooklyn bridge. In no way with her career she can be unaware of such things.
Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the
"(C)" portion markings on an email chain signified, explaining that she thought
it meant the paragraphs were marked in alphabetical order.
As far as her knowledge of the various classification levels of U.S.
government information, Clinton responded that she took all classified material
seriously regardless of the "level," be it "TOP SECRET," "SECRET" or
"CONFIDENTIAL."
"... Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home. ..."
"... Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes. ..."
Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows]
server built by Bryan Pagliano, according to the report, which stated that Clinton "had no knowledge
of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home.
Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have
any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to
the FBI's investigation notes.
NYT comments are just overflowing from neoliberal supported of this neocon warmonger Hillary.
Amazing !!!
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end. ..."
"... So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply. ..."
"... There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation. ..."
"... If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators. ..."
"... Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. ..."
"... The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. ..."
"... The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. ..."
"... IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her. ..."
"... ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter. ..."
"... The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. ..."
"... These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned. ..."
"... She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State. ..."
"... The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things. ..."
"... I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries. ..."
"... "But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency." ..."
"... Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either. ..."
"... But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea. ..."
"... Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office .. ..."
"... With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. ..."
"... You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today. ..."
Among the other key findings in the F.B.I. documents:
■ Mrs. Clinton regarded emails containing classified discussions about planned drone strikes as
"routine."
■ She said she was either unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.
■ Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state, had advised her to "be very careful" in how she
used email.
Scot, Seattle 7 hours ago
Until I hear crowds chanting "lock him up" in relation to George Bush or Dick Cheney and
the Iraq war, I'm going to have a hard time taking this gross witch hunt seriously. The
contrast between Clinton's email administration screw-up and the unbroken daisy-chain of
once-in-a-century global catastrophes committed by the Bush administration is so huge as to be
hard to grasp.
Paul, Canada 6 hours ago
Sorry folks, but time to point out what has been missed by everyone as they attempt to make
this a political election issue.
There is no way Hillary or any elected official should be given the opportunity to use a
private email server. Any technology org worth its salt will have its systems and computer
usage policies locked down tight.
Any action by a user that falls outside these policies must be automatically detected and
investigated by the systems teams. Wrongs identified, computer users advised on proper usage,
and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence.
The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure
system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt'
officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations
in their cases as there is no trophy at the end.
So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be
reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from
undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials
through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply.
Hillary nor other officials are computer experts. They should not be expected to be
responsible for this. I would say there is a greater risk in how these systems are being
currently managed.
Peter, New York 6 hours ago
Sadly this supports the Donald's charge about Hillary's questionable judgment. There is
something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same
time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the
perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her
connection with the Clinton foundation.
If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she
did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort
through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators.
Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the
nickname crooked Hillary. Even if you don't like Trump, it is very difficult to make the
case that Clinton is a better alternative.
Lois Brenneman, New Milford, PA 3 hours ago
The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably
criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line.
In their view, no matter what Clinton has done, she is still better than having a
Republican in the White House and, most esp, better than Donald Trump. I am hardly one who can
complain, however, as I basically do the same thing. I'd probably vote for my dog before I
would a Democrat even if it means voting for a flawed candidate. I find Clinton to be the very
pits of all possible candidates, much like the Dems view of Trump.
The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their
candidate no matter how flawed is that person. If anyone else was heading the Dem ticket,
I suspect that person would win by a landslide in 2016. With Clinton heading up the party,
Trump just may win. Choosing her as the candidate was arguably the stupidest thing the Dems
could have possibly done
Wally Wolf, Texas 6 hours ago
ENOUGH!! Compared to what G.W. Bush did (the facts are known to all) while president and
what Donald Trump did as a business man (Trump University, numerous bankruptcies, tax evasion
and/or avoidance, questionable modeling agency practices, and on and on), Hillary Clinton's
emails are small potatoes. If people allow this ridiculous email situation to cripple Hillary
and allow Trump to become president then they will have to live with the fallout and, believe
me, it will be disastrous.
Joseph, NYC 4 hours ago
IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department
email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though
it was offered to her.
If she did not do this to cover up her activities then she really bad judgement, and if she
did it to cover up her activities, why did she do so? Either way, she is not a person to be
entrusted with the Presidency. This is what is causing the nightmare Trump to still be
competitive and to be catching up with her in the polls. If he wins HRC and the DNC have noone
to blame but themselves.
gary, Washington state 6 hours ago
Congress asked Bush-Cheney in 2007 for emails surrounding the firing of eight U.S.
attorneys. AG Gonzales could not produce the email because it was sent on a non-government
email server, gwb43.com, which was run by the RNC. No smoking gun--sorry about that.
Over time it was revealed that 22 White House officials including Karl Rove used private RNC
email accounts for government business. In April 2007, Dana Perino admitted that approximately
5 million messages may have been deleted from that server. In 2009, watchdog groups announced
that technicians had recovered 22 million emails that were deleted somehow from gwb43.com.
Many of these messages were recovered from other government email servers.
Clearly gwb43.com was under the legal obligations of the Presidential Records Act, which each
of these 22 million deletions violated. Republican leaders (like Chris Christie, Karl Rove,
etc.) who are now enraged by Hillary Clinton's email server were then uncritical of the Bush
administration and its behavior.
Is this American exceptionalism--hypocrisy, political pretense, and selective enforcement of
laws?
Sam Crow, SF Bay Area 3 hours ago
ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies
handling her communications. As the Secretary of State, how can they not have procedures
in place which would prevent this from happening? Hillary Clinton is ultimately
responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been
asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave
misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter.
Thomas MacLachlan, Highland Moors, Scotland 5 hours ago
Having read through these 58 pages, it's clear that all they say is that Hillary is not a
savvy technologist. She made her decision to use a private email system without understanding
the implications of it regarding security, access control, data integrity, or retention. Also,
none of her staff was competent in the technology involved, either. At a low level, perhaps.
But not at a high level, where the architecture defines how all these pieces of the system
work together. It was that area that fell apart and has caused her the myriad of political
problems she now faces with this.
The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in
designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. At State back then,
the system was full of holes and was very hackable. By comparison, Hillary's system was more
secure, though unauthorized. But you can't have a parade of different administrators or
consultants go stomping through the implementation and expect it to hold together, either.
The government needs to get their act together to provide systems which are actually secure
and globally available. This isn't just a technology statement. The workflows involved and
usage processes need to be well defined, and users need to be trained on them. And the
technical staff needs to show some leadership so that they can help guide senior staff to the
right solutions.
The buck stops with Hillary, but she is certainly not the guilty party in this.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 8 hours ago
These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of
convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that
much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her,
who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is
supposed to recall being warned.
She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which
subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified
stuff there is, because she was Sec of State.
The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements
of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The
FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are
felonies, not just little things.
This is an outrage. It has grown far beyond just a few emails.
EdBx, Bronx, NY 7 hours ago
I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and
politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at
least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information
is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries.
There is no conclusive evidence that our nation has been harmed by the classified
information released by Daniel Ellsburg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. On the other hand
it is certainly known that great harm was done by the misuse and abuse of classified
information by duly authorized government officials in getting us into the war in Iraq. The
lesson is that it is more important who we choose as president than how they maintained their
email accounts several years ago.
Also, while we may not have known it in 2008, we should know now that government officials
should operate under the assumption that anything on a computer is subject to hacking, no
matter how secure we think the system is.
chichimax, albany, ny 7 hours ago
It is amazing how much scrutiny this and the Clinton Foundation have gotten and how little
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and the "torture memos" got. Not to
mention the whole sum of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo episodes. Scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, thy
name is petty. Lack of scrutiny of the entire Bush Administration's misdeeds, thy name is
HUGE.
DCC, NYC 4 hours ago
"But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used
the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a
devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."
Wow, the head of the RNC finds that Hillary has a lack of judgment and honesty and is
incompetent. And we value his assessment because
he..........helped.............nominate......... Trump. Yep, his opinion really matters!
MyThreeCents, San Francisco 4 hours ago
Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can
understand that -- not sure I would either.
But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur
to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and
I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home
might be a good idea.
I'd probably conclude that it was advisable to get myself a State Department email address,
and use it every now and then. True, US enemies reportedly hacked the State Department server,
along with the personal emails of several top Clinton aides, which may make one think it's
pointless even to try to keep one's emails secure. But it's much easier to hack a private
server located in someone's home than it is to hack a State Department email server.
A bored 14-year old kid probably could have hacked Clinton's private server in 15 minutes.
Kathryn Horvat, Salt Lake City 57 minutes ago
More and more I find myself upset with the poor judgment of the leaders of the Democratic
Party, who allowed and encouraged her to run for president. She already was encumbered by a
lot of baggage, not to mention her loss to Obama in 2008. I also wonder about the judgment of
the New York Times , which engaged in the most openly biased reporting and opinion pieces I
have ever seen.
How could so many seasoned politicians have been so blind?
David Howell, 33541 57 minutes ago
Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or
Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy ,
deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want
change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we
have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office ..
fmofcali, orange county 1 hour ago
With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also
consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing
to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. How can
you have a commander in chief that refuses to simply take accountability and always blames her
staff for the issues she clearly creates?!
moviebuff, Los Angeles 1 hour ago
If this were Nixon - a man I detested, mind you - we'd have empowered Senate and House
committees to look into disqualifying him as a candidate. Did those who still support Hillary
Milhous Clinton even read the article on which they're commenting? Sending the emails
privately, the order to delete, the use of Bleach bit after she was ordered to preserve the
emails, throwing her aides under the bus… her behavior makes RMN look like Abe Lincoln.
J.D., USA 1 hour ago
I've worked as a tech consultant for years and I've seen this same ignorance from so many
people, that it's not surprising. E-mail is something most people use, but it's not something
most people understand, so they don't really get how unsecured it is. Was it a potentially
dangerous mistake to make? Yes. Was it surprising? Absolutely not. But, more because most
people don't understand e-mail, than because of any lapse in reasoning or malicious intent on
her part.
... ... ..
Malebranchem, Ontario, NY 1 hour ago
You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'.
On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually
new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake.
Until today.
"The newly disclosed documents, while largely reinforcing what had already been known
about the F.B.I. investigation, provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's use
of a private email system, which has shadowed her presidential campaign for more than a
year."
As another commenter said, "There's no there there." It is the NYT that is casting a shadow
over Secretary Clinton's campaign. Wake me when you actually start covering this Presidential
race.
"... The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server. ..."
"... she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation. ..."
"... Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities?? ..."
"... After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie. ..."
"... So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. ..."
"... She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then. ..."
"... It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions. ..."
"... I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues ..."
"... Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze! ..."
"... The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails. ..."
"... James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues" ..."
"... She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie. ..."
"... So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory? ..."
"... If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now? ..."
"... Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her. ..."
"... Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton ..."
"... Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it. ..."
"... Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings. The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans. ..."
"... So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software? ..."
"... Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more! ..."
"... You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC. ..."
"... Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL ..."
"... Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/ ..."
"... Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled. ..."
"... So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass? ..."
"... We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that. ..."
Clinton told investigators she could not recall getting any briefings on how to handle classified
information or comply with laws governing the preservation of federal records, the summary of her
interview shows.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the
New Year had a blood clot," the FBI's summary said. "Based on her doctor's advice, she could only
work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."
A Clinton campaign aide said Clinton only referenced her concussion to explain she was not at
work but for a few hours a day at that time, not that she did not remember things from that period.
The concussion was widely reported then, and Republicans have since used it to attack the 68-year-old
candidate's health in a way her staff have said is unfounded.
The FBI report, which does not quote Clinton directly, is ambiguous about whether it was her concussion
that affected her ability to recall briefings.
- SEPTEMBER 02 2016 -
DONALD J. TRUMP
STATEMENT ON FBI
RELEASING CLINTON
INTERVIEW NOTES
★ ★ ★
"Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about
her private email server defy belief. I was
absolutely shocked to see that her answers
to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to
what she told the American people. After
reading these documents, I really don't
understand how she was able to get away
from prosecution." - Donald J. Trump
The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under
a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely
careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton
lied when she said she had permission to use a private server.
These are departments in a Democratic administration, not a vast right wing conspiracy. The
fact that Republicans try to make hay out of the facts in this case do not change the fact that
Clinton, according to a Democrat's STate Dept and FBI, acted carelessly and was less than truthful.
Anthony Zenkus she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate
predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material
later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential
chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000.
so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual.
So why is only her email under investigation.
Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How
about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working
on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities??
How about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby who obstructed and derailed the investigation??
How about the way Republicans attacked Plame who was a loyal employee of the CIA for over 20
years??
Republicans are the true threats to our national security,not Hillary Clinton.
The attacks on Hillary will only get worse over the next month, then they break out the big one,
the October surprise. Everyone that chose her over Bernie should have seen this. After she
gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all
her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie.
Michelle Becker Wrong. The Stamford Study shows without question that the states without paper
trails had her way outperforming the exit polls where it wasn't statistically possible without
some kind of tampering. Add to that the placebo ballots in California, the voter purge in AZ,
IL, NY, and it would have been a much different result. Could she have won legitimately? We'll
never know thanks to the DNC leaks of collusion with the HRC camp, the media, and others. But
hey, enjoy the status quo, your fracking, your endless wars, your corporate influence in Congress.
This is what you wanted. Knock yourself out. USA. USA.
So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory.
And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying
and using him as a defense for using a private server. I simply don't know how establishment
Dems keep trying to cover this obviously nagging problem they have with their candidate. What
a horrible choice between these two awful major party nominees.
It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences
because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd
be serious repercussions.
Here is a question for all the angry white male Trump supporters.
Republicans control the Senate
and the House. Republicans control 31 states as governors including the rust belt states. So if
republicans are in control why haven't they created high wage jobs that you whine about? Why has
the economy slowed with republicans running government? Why haven't they fixed the immigration
problem? The republican congress can pass a bill tomorrow to build Trump's wall and hire a deportation
force. The republican congress can pass a balanced budget anytime the want? Taxes too high? Republicans
can cut the tax rate to zero if they want. My point is why do republicans want to blame the president
and Hillary for every problem known to man while their republican leaders sit on their butts doing
nothing to solve a single problem. Maybe you need to tell congress to stop investigating and pass
a Jobs Bill.
I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does,
most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues. The article clearly states:
The
FBI has concluded Clinton was wrong: At least 81 email threads contained information that was
classified at the time, although the final number may be more than 2,000, the report says. Some
of the emails appear to include discussion of planned future attacks by unmanned US Military drones,
the FBI report says.
Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids
and you sheep would blame the car or the booze!
Here's the thing... all 81 email chains that the FBI claims were "classified" didn't originate
with Clinton. All were sent to her... none were marked as classified... and no one who actually
composed and sent these emails thought that they should have been classified at the time.
The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who
were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about
any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were
responsible for actually writing and sending these emails.
If you really expect me to take this seriously as anything other than a republican fever dream,
please show me ANY wrongdoing on Clinton's part that involves more than being copied on someone
else's email chain... because as evil master plans go, that's kind of reaching.
James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved
Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply
defend her or ignore her issues"
She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials
and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was
over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just
as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie.
So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion
she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and
she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory?
Since I'm sure you won't believe me from over in your fact free world, here is the exact quote
from the Reuter's article: "Clinton said she received no instructions or direction regarding the
preservation or production of records from (the) State (Department) during the transition out
of her role as Secretary of State in 2013.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a
concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot (in her head). Based on her doctor's
advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing
she received," the report said.
Whether she intended to use a private server and/or was briefed about the Department's policies
and procedures is one thing. Surely the State Department has records of whether HRC was briefed
or not and the main question is whether she then decided not to comply.
If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from
deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments
before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also
required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC
is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now?
Actually she should have been briefed when she was the FIrst Lady..and then again when she was
a senator..and then again when she was secretary of state.
Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings.
"The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with
the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out
any charges against her.
Agents noted that Clinton could not recall being trained to handle classified materials as
secretary of state, and had no memory of anyone raising concerns about the sensitive information
she received at her private address.
The Democratic presidential nominee also 'did not recall receiving any emails she thought should
not be on an unclassified system,' the FBI's report declared.
She did not recall all of the briefings she received on handling sensitive information as she
made the transition from her post as secretary of state, due to a concussion she suffered in 2012."
Nodens Caedmon
"Couldn't recall all briefings on preserving documents."
Who needs to remember security briefings
definitely not someone running for president.
Why even mention the concussion? She can't remember more than 10% of her briefings even if she
is far above average, she would have to review the notes to jog her memory for even partial recall
as everyone must do when asked to testify about events like this.
With the number of briefings
and variety of subjects, her memory is the least useful way to recreate those meetings, with or
without a concussion, if ten people at the meetings recounted their memories, it would sound like
ten different meetings, the notes and minutes are the only reliable sources.
For some important decisions, she might remember quite a bit but there are natural limits to
memory that are quite severe unless you have unique innate skills.
Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked
just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning
Clinton
Nancy Gilbert
Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses
to her advantage. Got it.
Obviously the powers that be want Hillary. That's why we've got a choice between her and trump.
As bad as she is, she looks like a saint next that madman. Ha! For now on I will be sitting next
to the overweight peeps. That way I will look slim.
From Wikileaks: Note on Clinton FBI report: Our records show that Clinton sent & received
thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings.
The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average
Americans.
So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we
keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping
software?
Mani Rand
Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how
to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and
executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more!
Now let's watch all the Libs quantify all of this LOL. She could run naked through Times Square
and the Huffpos would somehow justify her actions as bold and showing off her leadership capabilities
You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue
she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president."
Kudos DNC.
Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI
Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told
the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could
only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes
stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due
to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period.
http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/
Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She
said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal
records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview
with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining
what was classified information and how it should be handled.
"We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she'd surrendered
every single government business-related email upon the State Department's
request" [
New
York Post
].
This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy
thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved
government business - some of it highly sensitive and significant (such
as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered
but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government
records to one's own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if
no classified information is involved.
I rarely find myself agreeing with a
National Reviewcolumnist
writing in the New York Post, but "converting government records to one's
own use and destroying them":
Yes, exactly
.
"... According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet. ..."
An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks
accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.
The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of
hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which
originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.
The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released
report
on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.
According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an
email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor
"exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public
internet.
The owner of the account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was
"not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software."
"... the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header." ..."
"... You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'" ..."
Monday night on "CNN Tonight," supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, billionaire
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, said Clinton did nothing wrong because the person who set up her
email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header."
...
And so you go - look, I was in this business. My first career, my first company, all I did was install
local area networks and messaging and email systems and I had my own personal server in my office
until about 2010, and so I've been through this whole process. And so she talks to the admin who
is responsible, she doesn't know any better, and takes his or her advice."
"I think it was a he,"
he continued. "And it just so happens that he was given immunity by the Justice Department so we
haven't had a chance to hear any of this. But for that personal server, if that admin had done his
job like I had done my job doing the same thing, I would have set up filters and alerts that said
any email that came with a classified header or any of the determined classified markings like the
little 'c' Director Comey mentioned, pop it out, right?
You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that
you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know
to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print
it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I
never dealt with anything marked classified.'"
"... With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife… ..."
"... It isn't that it happened. It is the timing. ..."
"... Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .! ..."
"... "I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said. ..."
"... "But I think it works if you fully support each other." During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son. " I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said. ..."
"... "I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support." ..."
With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures
this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated
wife…
I mean if the mayoral campaign blowup of his career comeback for the same issues… (done on
camera no less).
No, it isn't beyond credulity. I never said he didn't do it. But apparently this has been going
on since last year with a woman he has never met. And unless I missed something, she leaked this.
Why out this now? Other times he goofed and it was public, OR was done to upset his comeback weak
though it might have been. But why now? At some point in the next few days some advantage for
the woman may change my mind, but otherwise it is very convenient.
Read the comments on the little Abedin story, and one has to conclude that our species is mostly
Fokked. I particularly like this one:
Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing
to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being
of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .!
Which follows this text from the article:
"I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics
because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your
private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with
if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly
in my marriage," Abedin said.
"But I think it works if you fully support each other."
During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time
and her husband helps to care for her son.
" I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have
the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly
can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.
"I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village
we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful
woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be
because I have that support."
Big Jim Thompson, former US Attorney in Chicago and former Governor of Illinois, got married
to a former assistant US attorney and a child was somehow produced. Little Samantha was, like
the marriage from the gossip I heard and pontificating in the papers, just popped out to scotch
rumors about Thompson's polarity.
The salient part of the tale is that while Thompson was out campaigning with his spouse, with
Baby Samantha in tow, neither parent noticed that the kid was, like, seriously sick, fever as
I recall of over 104 degrees, and some brave campaign worker had to do the parenting thing and
see the kid got medical attention.
Reported that Thompson et ux were irked that this threw the campaign schedule off. Did not
keep him from getting elected… This guy was also on the "9/11 Commission," and has lots of other
notable corruption connection credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Thompson
One claim to fame was obtaining conviction of former Governor Otto Kerner for public corruption,
taking race track stock for helping the track owners get more racing dates. Chief witness was
Marge Everett, attorney for the racetrack corporation. She got disbarred in IL, so Thompson flew
her personally to CA and testified on her behalf before the "fitness committee" of the CA bar,
that she was an upright moral person fit to be admitted to the CA bar. Shortly after, as I recall,
ol' Marge got in trouble for peddling stock and other valuables to the CA officials who oversaw
the doling out of racing dates (ka-ching!) to her new client, a CA racetrack corporation…
"I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support
of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so
I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.
With Basic Income, maybe she can stay home as well…
"... The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation. ..."
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, we've been speculating for a year about what the email scandal was
all about and I think we were diverted for a year about the classification. It's a real issue, serious
issue, but that was never the issue.
The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she
hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what
was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation.
"... The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday. ..."
"... Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server. ..."
The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to
hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
said Thursday.
Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server.
"What?
Like with a cloth or something?" she asked. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."
"... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
"... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
"... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
"... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments
sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547
pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by
Hillary Clinton.
The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as
a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February
29, 2016.
A letter from
Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was
losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going
to wrong hands through the black market.
The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute
chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save
themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
Key parts:
During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan
rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned
that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb
(AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya,
to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals
fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO
and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar
al Qaddafi.
These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the
week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External
Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired
about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal
weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for
sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms
dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious
threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern
Mauritania.
(Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned
that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of
Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment
again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that
AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time
when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across
North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals
in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step
in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by
Western tourists.
Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia
to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not
a top priority issue for them.
Pomkiwi
GreatUncle
Aug 25, 2016 7:02 PM
As a matter of habit I run CC Cleaner after I close my browser. Imagine
my surprise when I get a message 'Firefox is still running - needs to be
closed to continue cleaning'. I click ok close it then get a message '
not closing would you like to force it to close?' That works - perhaps I
should disconnect my router to be sure lol.
GreatUncle
css1971
Aug 25, 2016 6:21 PM
Got to admit I use CC cleaner and leave it to always destructively clean.
Then by the time more data is overewritten hundreds of times you exceed the
20 layer or so limit of being able to peal bakc the layer.
Microsoft is
lazy or more to the point it intentionally leaves you exposed for failing to
do this as standard.
Makes the spooks job alot harder.
Dre4dwolf
Aug 25, 2016 5:53 PM
All the emails are out there on the internet, the server had no encryption, out
there somewhere is some nerd with all of Hillary Clintons Emails hanging on his
wall as a testament to his great conquest over " the server ".
Hillary
Clintons emails are like pokemon, they are all over the place, you just gota
"catch um all " by finding people willing to "trade".
Also, there are always two copies on an email chain
1 copy on Hillary Clintons Server
and
1 copy on the recipient/sending server, you need two servers to have a "
back and forth" conversation on the internet between two different email
domains.
So one way to get all the emails would be:
1) Compile a list of known email contacts from the pool of emails you
already have
2) Get a judge to sign a warrant to force the domains / hosting companies of
those email contacts to turn over their data
3) ? Profit as 90% of the missing emails are recovered?
There is a very small chance that the 30,000 emails missing were each from
30,000 unique people.
Most likeley its less than 1000 contacts and most of them will have benign
emails associated with them that were not deleted (so they are in the contact
list pool).
The NSA has all this data, everyone knows the NSA has all this data, thus
far most of the leaked emails PROBABLY COME FROM NSA AGENTS who are concerned
about the future of the country.
asierguti
Aug 25, 2016 5:48 PM
I worked for a big data recovery company, and there is more effective and
easier way to destoy de data. Just take out the hard drive, open it and scratch
every platter. That's it, the data is now gone forever, unless you (insert the
NSA here) have a copy.
I rembeber we had a law enforcement agency coming with a hard drive from a
guy they wanted to prosecute. That bastard opened the hard drive, scratched
every platter, even bent them, and smashed every single chip.
Rubicon727
Aug 25, 2016 5:57 PM
Here's what one website questioning WHO can call for and "Independent Counsels,
Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
| By Jack Maskell | Legislative Attorney | June 20, 2013 |
.. Congress may
also have a legislative role in designing a statutory mechanism for the
appointment of "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors," as it did in
title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under the provisions of that
law relating to the appointment of "independent counsels" (called "special
prosecutors" until 1983), the Attorney General was directed to petition a
special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name an independent
counsel upon the receipt of credible allegations of criminal misconduct by
certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government
whose prosecution by the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a
conflict of interest. In 1999, Congress allowed the "independent counsel"
provisions of law to expire. Upon the expiration of the law in June of 1999, no
new "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors" may be appointed by a
three-judge panel upon the application of the Attorney General.
The Attorney General retains the general authority to designate or name
individuals as "special counsels" to conduct investigations or prosecutions of
particular matters or individuals on behalf of the United States. Under
regulations issued by the Attorney General in 1999, the Attorney General may
appoint a "special counsel" from outside of the Department of Justice who acts
as a special employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of the
Attorney General.
The NSA has all of Killary's Emails in triplicate. .. If they were encrypted in transit
they can have them cracked and broken in about 10 minutes apiece.
They can search them and have them and all metadata that goes with them in a
few clicks of a mouse. .. They know what routers the Emails went through on
their way to China and Soros.
Hackers, my ass, that's what the NSA does and it has a budget of billions
and billions. ... What do people not understand about spying on the web?
Live Hard, If The FBI Wants Emails They Dial NSA-2001 And Ask For Alex, Die
Free
~ DC v2.0
smacker
Aug 25, 2016 6:20 PM
I've had BleachBit running on my system for a fair while and never been that
impressed with it, although all of these programs delete some stuff.
A far
better one that actually works well to clean stuff up is:
(Nirsoft have a huge range of small free progs for doing all sorts of
things)
Still, if the Clintonista had BleachBit running, she had
intent
.
LN
Aug 25, 2016 6:22 PM
"
FBI Admits Clinton Used Software Designed To "Prevent Recovery"
"
"Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as
shredding files to prevent recovery
, wiping free disk space to
hide traces of files deleted by other applications, and vacuuming Firefox to
make it faster. Better than free, BleachBit is open source."
Besides for nefarious reasons, why else would someone use this type of
software? And to top it off, this software is open source shareware... in her
world that means free.....
"... Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public. ..."
"... Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement. ..."
Hillary Clinton isn't just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint
as secretary of state – she's also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!
Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential
candidate's famously "deleted" emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers' names.
"I don't think she's so concerned about emails referring to her as secretly gay," said a Clinton
insider. "That's been out for years – her real fear is that the names of some of her lovers would
be made public!"
The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary's lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who
has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official;
and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. Hillary made
the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server
– before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public.
"That's clearly why she went to the extraordinary step of deleting everything," the high-ranking
source told The ENQUIRER .
Hillary is particularly concerned about intimate emails to longtime aide Huma Abedin – who
married U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner in a ceremony that many ridiculed as a political arrangement.
"... congressional Republicans subpoenaed three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup. ..."
"... The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas. ..."
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill Monday, congressional Republicans subpoenaed
three technology companies involved in her unusual home server setup.
The subpoenas were issued after the companies did not cooperate with
a House committee's investigation into the issue, said House Science panel Chairman
Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
"... "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.") ..."
"... The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe they are above reproach ..."
"... Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take advantage of a subordinate? ..."
When People spoke with Powell Sunday night in the Hamptons, he was
blunter. "Her people have been trying to pin it on me,"
he said. "The truth is, she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her
what I did." (Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. But it's okay; I'm free.")
JerseyCowboy > xplosneer
The Clintons' blatantly dishonest attempts to cover-up and deny their
scandals are almost always worse than the scandals themselves. They are shameless and believe
they are above reproach.
spudwhisperer > JerseyCowboy
I disagree - I think the scandals would be disqualifying and liable for prosecution even if
there were no cover-up.
mtbr1975 > xplosneer
I think a lot of that developed because of all the attempts to pin scandals on her... Can
you really blame her? Look at all the garbage she's been accused of... Everything from murder
to enabling Bill Clinton to cheat on her.
Uncle Luie > mtbr1975
100% true! From her lawyer billings in the early 80s, to Whitewater to Vince Foster,
Travel-gate and on and on. The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right
wing conspiracy", also 100% true, just like Mconnell's plan to oppose and obstruct everything
Obama tries to accomplish. These people are dirt
oracle > Uncle Luie
"The most accurate thing she ever said was about the "vast right wing conspiracy", also
100% true"
Ha. You realize that the first time that Hillary Clinton used the term "vast right wing
conspiracy" was regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal? How did the GOP force Bill to take
advantage of a subordinate?
Disqus 30 > qaz zaq
Don't forget she's the devil and founded ISIS. Those are the best ones.
Lexi > Disqus
It's true trolly. Proof is all over the place. Wow- you are defending her like she's a
saint. Nobody is doing that. You seem full of morality (Not) to defend a serial liar who
corrupted our country in the worst possible ways. Sad you.
bookish1 > mtbr1975
Sorry, but it was Hillary who decided to set up her own email server, send classified
material, refuse to authorize a Benghazi rescue mission, make millions off the Russian uranium
deal, and "mistakenly" delete 30,000 emails. If she wasn't so inept and corrupt, she wouldn't
be hit with all these "scandals."
See how that works?
jar > xplosneer
This one is particularly mendacious as she has previously publicly stated that she chose
the private server so she would only have to carry one device. Of what relevance is Powell's
prior practice if this was her motivation? The fact is that she will throw up as many excuses
and deflections as she can, without any regard for the consistency of her arguments. This is
why over 60% of the American people find her dishonest and untrustworthy (or, as a recent poll
indicated, only 11% of the public finds her honest and trustworthy).
Yoch Man > Lew
The world has NOT changed much in 25 years and being young has nothing to do with it. I
have worked in IT for 26 years at a state level. If I had done what Clinton did back in 1989 I
would have been fired and gone to jail for several reasons. aside from top secret or
classified information. FERPA and the Federal records act are just two reasons. The Federal
records act is as old as 1950. Every single document that is compiled on work computers OR
work hours belongs to the state or Federal government. I also have an obligation to protect
emails addresses, employees that I work with. I must keep their personal information
confidential. Add on top of that a nations secrets.
In 1995 Bill Clinton passed legislation and clarified the Federal records act and classified
information. See state department manual "5 FAM". It has been there for 21 years. Hillary
Clinton is lying to you.
DB > Lew • 7 hours ago
Clinton hired her own IT boy. He was not in his 60s. You can make excuses for her age all
you like..... but it doesn't work. Btw, I have friends in their 60s who run major IT depts.
Being old yourself, you should know people can stay sharp barring some physical/cognitive
issues.
Lew > bookish1
How would you grant control of 1/5 of Americas Uranium? You believe if you owned 20% of
Berkshire Hathaway you'd start pushing Buffets buttons?
You think you'd be telling the board; I'll be taking home six tractor trailer loads of wrigley
gum for my son's birthday party?
You think you'd be telling "fruit of the loom" how to put a better cheaper elastic on their
underwear?...
This company will share in Corp. profit, little more...
Tyfereth > Admiral Nelson
Loathing Donald Trump and finding Hillary Clinton's serial mendaciousness and corruption
upsetting are not mutually exclusive propositions. There is literally no one who Hillary
Clinton won't blame to avoid personal responsibility for her actions, and while it may not
matter to her supporters that she's throwing General Powell under the bus, its a sign that we
are in for 8 years of Hillary Clinton making poor decisions, and deflecting blame onto others.
Raubüberfall
Hillary's reason for using a private email server was so she could control that source of
information, which the public and other State Dept. officials would now have access to only
through her. A shadow Secretary of State, that is, unaccountable to president, public, and law
enforcement alike.
"... Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with excuses this sloppy. ..."
Hillary Clinton has insisted from day one that her illegal use of a private email server was
no big deal at all, even if it put many Americans' lives at risk.
Now the former first lady is refusing to even take blame for the use of the server, saying
that the practice has been around for decades and that another former secretary of state.
"Now, it turns out Hillary's trying to push blame for the whole fiasco on someone else
entirely: Colin Powell. As the New York Times writes: Pressed by the F.B.I.about her email
practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account."
Colin Powell has denied using a private email account for anything other than non-classified
material.
"And as we know, Hillary did use that email server for sending and receiving classified
information, while Powell did not. This is yet another case of Hillary trying to push her poor
judgement onto someone else. Unfortunately for her, Colin Powell isn't willing to quietly take
the fall for her."
Hillary Clinton has been an expert at bobbing and weaving around controversy during this
election cycle, but the sheer magnitude of her recent scandals may end up blindsiding her with
excuses this sloppy.
The subtext is that it was Clinton's carelessness with classified material which got him killed. And the probability that the
reason for his return to Tehran was that his minders had assessed it was now safe for him to go back and be Washington's ear in
Tehran.
... leak also revealed anti-gay slurs, mocking African Americans and attempts to con reputable
news outlets with fake Trump videos.
The computer network used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign was
hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with
the matter told Reuters. The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows reports
of two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the party's fundraising committee for
candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.
The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber hacking
attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the
matter said on Friday.
A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and
the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty
vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks.
So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian
hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and
Israel?).
Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data
collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have
information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's
slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not
all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes
the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
"... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI
could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official,
declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.
Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National
Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned
about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when
he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.
He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk
990 AM.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track
down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney:
"Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA
database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that
NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated
of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the
deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right
there."
Listen to the full interview here: ...
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S.
intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published
by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma
material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA
officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise
of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many
people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians
as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive
information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on
Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow
him on Facebook.
"... Campaign manager Robbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri-who would later help coax the candidate into issuing an apology-agreed, according to people close to the situation. ..."
"... One thing was quite clear: Clinton was in no mood to apologize for, or even admit to, an error in judgment. She'd repeatedly tell her staff "I have done nothing wrong" and maintained she was simply following the example set by George W. Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had transacted much of his own State Department business over private email. ..."
Hillary Clinton is a hard woman to counsel during
a crisis. She is at times warm, at times withering-when staffers offer excuses, her favorite rejoinder
is "shoulda, woulda, coulda!"-and she's prone to fretting that her staff doesn't have her back.
For all the dysfunction on her famously infighting 2008 campaign, Clinton's team that year was
made up of many old friends who knew how to navigate her moods and reassure her when things went
sour. Facing the server scandal, Clinton headed into battle surrounded by people she hardly knew,
and a staff so new that many weren't even officially on the payroll yet. The fact that she spent
most of her time working out of a Manhattan office and seldom visited her cubicle-farm headquarters
in seriously un-hip downtown Brooklyn didn't help either.
When the story splashed onto the New York Times website on the evening of March 2, Clinton
was above all angry, and in the first strategy sessions-over the phone -- she defaulted to what old
Clinton hands refer to as "pity party mode," dismissing the media frenzy over the emails as a whiffle-ball
Whitewater while railing against the very real right-wing campaign amassed against her.
Podesta, often speaking on the road or from his home in Washington, counseled transparency and
disclosure within the legal restrictions placed on him by Kendall. Clinton's new pollster and strategist,
Joel Benenson-a longtime Obama adviser with no longstanding personal relationship with the candidate
-- advised her to take responsibility for what had been, at the least, a political mistake. Campaign
managerRobbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri-who would later help coax
the candidate into issuing an apology-agreed, according to people close to the situation.
Even Mills, Clinton's most trusted and protective adviser-a lawyer who had been aware of the server
setup as Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department-agreed on the politics. Nonetheless, Mills
had a knack for expressing the advice in the most frightening terms possible: Air your linen, she'd
say, but you'll pay a terrible personal price.
One thing was quite clear: Clinton was in no mood to apologize for, or even admit to, an error
in judgment. She'd repeatedly tell her staff "I have done nothing wrong" and maintained she was simply
following the example set by George W. Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had transacted
much of his own State Department business over private email.
* This is the
topper, on the whole email
server issue
-
Interesting (and inconvenient) fact:
Hillary (while Sec. of State) forced the
resignation, in June of 2012, of
US Ambassador
to Kenya J. Scott Gration
, (get this) after
the Inspector General found that he
was using an
unauthorized (personal) email account to conduct
official government business
… sound familiar?!?
I guess the '
Queen
' is exempt.
Source: Washington Post (hardly a conservative
newspaper) June 29, 2012
viablanca
@GP Russell well yeah,
even her dumbest, I mean most loyal followers know she is a
living double standard
mryummie
65% of americans (across the board) dont trust hillary........lmao
"... "I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." – 12 March 2015, New York ..."
"... Comey said that Clinton not only used multiple servers but also "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, undercutting her justification. ..."
"I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails
instead of two." – 12 March 2015, New York
Comey said that Clinton not only used multiple servers but also "used numerous mobile devices to
view and send email" using her personal account, undercutting her justification.
Wright noted that while the State Department's information technology budget trails many other departments, Clinton's arrangement
was likely still more vulnerable because it was administered by many people without a cybersecurity background.
"When you take a bad situation and put something else bad on top of it you've made it far worse," he told POLITICO.
And the countries interested in going after Clinton's emails all possess advanced cyber capabilities, experts said. The federal
government has determined that Chinese hackers have been snooping on personal email accounts of top U.S. officials for years and
just last year Secretary of State John Kerry said it is "likely" that Russian and Chinese hackers are reading his emails.
As for Israel, hackers would have targeted Clinton's emails to glean her positions on Middle East issues, according to Wright.
"They're friendly … but even friendlies can get aggressive on spying on each other," he said.
Clinton also accessed her private email "extensively" while traveling, Comey said, "including sending and receiving work-related
emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."
This practice considerably heightened the risk of compromise, particularly if Clinton used unencrypted pathways to access her
email while abroad, said Jason Straight, chief privacy officer of UnitedLex, which advises corporations on cybersecurity practices.
Comey also said FBI investigators determined that hackers had infiltrated the private commercial email accounts of people that
regularly emailed Clinton's personal account, opening up another potential entry point for digital snoops.
The FBI chief didn't name these outside contacts, leading some, including Wright, to wonder if there would be further investigation
into the emails of top aides, like Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin.
But while there are considerable factors pointing to a likely intrusion, there may never be a smoking gun, according to specialists.
"The bottom line is that we will likely never know for certain whether her server was compromised or not," said Straight.
From comments: "Just last year:
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military ... /30862027/ Granted that was two a year probation plus
forever not being allowed a security clearance but there is no substantial difference between between
their violations. In fact her violations were several magnitudes worse. "
Notable quotes:
"... Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney. ..."
"... Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues, such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail. ..."
"... Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York. ..."
"... He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now he is not so sure. ..."
"... "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden ..."
"... Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. ..."
"... This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on. Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this? ..."
"... Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting "All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her... ..."
"... In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary of Stat. ..."
"... People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job. ..."
"... Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information. However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the case. ..."
"... Other people who negligently handle classified information also do face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending. ..."
"The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Chaffetz said in a statement announcing
the hearing. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated
the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American
people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation. I thank Director
Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions."
Update, 11:30 am: Eight e-mail threads of the more than 30,000 messages stored on
Clinton's server included conversations containing what was determined by State Department and Intelligence
Community review to be of the highest level of classification (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented
Information). But that information wasn't marked as such-and much of it was sent to Clinton by her
staff from the State Department's unclassified e-mail system. Both Clinton and State Department staff
sent messages stored on Clinton's server and on the State Department's unclassified e-mail system
that included classified, secret, and Top Secret/SCI information, including names of intelligence
community personnel.
In response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware that she was sending highly
classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think our investigation established
she was that sophisticated about classification." (Later in his testimony, Comey elaborated that
the lack of sophistication was more technical than understanding the importance of protecting classified
data.)
Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?"-meaning
that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary
of State. "Yes, she was," Comey replied. "Good grief," exclaimed Mulvaney.
"Based on your answers, and what we know, it seems to me that she is stunningly incompetent
in handling e-mail and classified information," said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), acknowledging Comey's
honesty. "For a Secretary of State, that level of carelessness is shocking."
Chaffetz concluded the hearing with a battery of questions over the people who had access to Clinton's
e-mails, including the administrators and lawyers. "She's not the head of Fish and Wildlife," Chaffetz
shouted.
Comey responded that it wasn't unreasonable for Clinton to assume that administrators would not
be reading her e-mail. And in other testimony, Comey said that because of the lack of security markings
on the vast majority of the content, it was reasonable to assume Clinton believed the contents to
be unclassified.
Under further questioning from Chaffetz, Comey said that the FBI did not look at civil issues,
such as violations of the Freedom of Information Act and federal records law, nor did they look at
whether Clinton had committed perjury before Congress in sworn testimony wherein she said that she
had neither sent nor received classified information via her e-mail.
Update, 1:00 pm: While a statute passed by Congress in 1917 allowed for prosecution
based on "gross negligence," Comey said that there were questions about the constitutionality of
that statute, and a later statute for misdemeanor offenses based on negligence. He said the decision
not to recommend prosecution "fits within a framework of fairness and what the Justice Department
has prosecuted over the last 50 years. I don't see cases that were prosecuted on facts like these,"
continued Comey. "There was one time it was charged in an espionage case, and the defendant pled
guilty on another charge so it was never adjudicated."
The general tone of Comey's testimony was that while Clinton was careless with classified information,
virtually none of the information that was sensitive was marked as such. Three e-mail threads included
"content markers" at the beginning of paragraphs within the body of messages indicating that the
paragraphs included classified information (using a letter "C" in parentheses). In response to a
question from Rep. Thomas Massie, Comey said, "Someone down in the chain put a portion marking in
the paragraph."
However, as noted by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, the State Department had said that the content
classification markings were in error-that they were preliminary marks from a "call sheet" for Clinton,
and should not have been left in the document when it was forwarded to Clinton.
Comey also said that Clinton's mail server was "less secure" than Gmail. "Individual accounts
might be less secure, but Google does regular security checks and updates," he explained. Clinton's
mail server, set up by people working for former President Bill Clinton's foundation, sat in a basement
of the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York.
As for Clinton's comments when asked if she had "wiped" her server: "Do you mean with a cloth?"
Comey quipped. "I would assume it was a facetious comment about a cloth, but I wouldn't know that."
In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware
that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think
our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification."
Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification
source?", meaning that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information
as Secretary of Stat.
"Yes, she was," Comey replied.
This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!
I didn't read it like that. I think Comey is honestly trying to say that Hillary is just not
sophisticated about it, even after decades of being read in to the program.
He's calling her incompetent, stupid, careless, reckless even...but just saying he doesn't
believe they can charge her based on the evidence they reviewed. He even said that prior to this
investigation he would have thought that any reasonable person would have known this, but now
he is not so sure.
TechTuner777Wise ,
"Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for
personal benefit, and you could be President." -- Edward Snowden
iPirateEverything
Between a rock and hard place... On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law
applies to everyone, and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful
woman in the world and possibly the next president. For someone who wanted software backdoors
so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
arkielArs
This seems like a situation where an independent attorney should have been brought on.
Why the fuck would the FBI have a role in determining whether or not to prosecute? Isn't that
the DOJ's role? A role best delegated to an independent attorney in cases like this?
Is an FBI recommendation a prerequisite to prosecution now? The fact that they found "extremely
careless" sounds like factual information upon which charges could be brought (but then again,
I don't know the letter of this law).
The last two cases could easily have been hand waived in the same was as being "extremely careless".
MeaildaArs
Marid wrote:
The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics. Proving
criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became even
more difficult who understands the politics.
Sub this for the strike: Proving criminal intent was never necessary considering the standard
here should be gross negligence, and even though actual harm was done when her server according
to experts was almost certainly hacked, her not being indicted is about what anybody who has been
paying attention to the bishops of the democratic party circling her and anointing her while chanting
"All really do like her. None have any issues with trusting her...
Read them yourselves. Look at the actual PDFs and see all the redacted info. Read the emails
and see how there is conversation that directly discusses information that was sent via secure
channels.
crustytheclown
In his testimony, in response to questions about whether Clinton should have been aware
that she was sending highly classified data in unclassified e-mails, Comey said, "I don't think
our investigation established she was that sophisticated about classification." Congressman
Mick Mulvaney (R-South Carolina) responded, "Isn't she an original classification source?", meaning
that Clinton was responsible for assigning a level of classification to information as Secretary
of Stat.
"Yes, she was," Comey replied.
This says volumes about Comey's bias and political aspirations. Shame! Shame!
I did a quick bit of research. The only instance of 18 U.S.C. 793(f) being used to prosecute
anyone was U.S. v. Dedeyan, 584 F.2d 36 (4th Cir., 1978) (which was referenced by Dir. Comey in
his press conference and at the House hearing).
In that case, a civilian mathematician took some classified documents home to proofread. His
cousin, who was a Soviet agent, was staying with him and took pictures of the classified work
he brought home with him. The cousin later told him he copied the classified materials and gave
him $1000 to keep quiet, which he did.
In that case, the DOJ brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 793(f) because he didn't report that
the classified material was copied after he learned about it, and for taking the bribe to remain
silent.
There has never been an instance of the DOJ bringing a 18 U.S.C. 793(f) case against anyone
for mere gross negligence alone.
I have lost all faith in the democracy the US politicians spout. Sounds good but its rotten
to the core with secret bullshit behind closed doors actually calling the shots. There is not
much point on expecting anything meaningful to come from this circus, its just pretending to look
busy and the outcome was already decided long before it even started.
Last edited by
AlexisR200X on Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:34 am
On one hand he needs to show us peasants that the law applies to everyone,
and on the other, he does not want to take on arguably the most powerful woman in the world and
possibly the next president.
For someone who wanted software backdoors so much - it couldn't happen to a more deserving
person.
People with security clearances are not generally prosecuted for unintentionally mishandling
classified documents. If it is a significant level of negligence, they lose their security clearance
and therefore their job and the ability to hold a similar job.
Clinton's intentional use of her own email server takes negligence to new heights. While
I don't think she had any justifiable reason to set up her own mail server and we have good reason
to suspect that it was done to avoid oversight, it doesn't seem to have been done with the intention
of mishandling classified docs. With Clinton we once again have evidence that she is trying to
hide her actions, but no clear evidence of criminal intent. Ideally she would lose her ability
to handle classified material and be banned from any position requiring access to classified information.
However, negligence in handling the nation's secrets isn't spelled out in the Constitution as
disqualifying someone for the office of President. You might think that no one would vote for
someone who's been proved untrustworthy and negligent on this scale, but that simply isn't the
case.
Prosecuting Hillary would be justified. However, an argument can also be made that without
evidence of clear criminal intent, that the voters should not be denied the opportunity to elect
their candidate of choice. Even if it's a really bad choice in my opinion.
The decision not to prosecute can be justified and if the people want to elect someone as President
who as Secretary of State put covering her ass and obscuring her actions over the security of
the United States, then we will have one more example of how democracy is an imperfect system.
I don't think there is a better system overall, but I of course have my own ideas on how our system
could be tweaked to make it a bit better.
Marid wrote: The decision not to prosecute was expected by anyone neutral to the politics.
Proving criminal intent is a very high bar to meet. And without actual harm done the case became
even more difficult.
Yep. Criminal intent is core to a good persecution.. Simple possession of classified information
can be trouble, but these people in state all have clearances. Just from personal job experience,
a staggering number of government employees have top secret clearances. It's not like stuff on
a private email server was more or less safe than going through official routing. In fact, it's
probably a bigger target.
If this is about how big a liar Hilary Clinton is, I would push people to look over some of
the very first presidential campaigns the USA has had to see all sorts of whoppers flying at candidates.
This is business as usual. Complete with the totally uninformed public spouting expert technological
opinions about things they know nothing about.
You all know this is a witch hunt. FBI Comey is doing the right thing in trying to be transparent
so as to let voters decide. Still going to vote Hillary and not Trump.
But this has nothing to do with voting for Hillary or Trump. I don't plan on voting for
either one, but that doesn't change what Hillary did, and the fact that her actions received
zero consequences, when anyone else would have received life in prison.
The FBI director has been very clear that no one else has EVER received prison for something
like this. In fact, this is a direct quote from him from this hearing: "You know what would
be a double standard? If Clinton actually were prosecuted for gross negligence"
Well there is a significant difference in both the level of negligence and the level of authority
of the person involved. Other people who negligently handle classified information also do
face serious consequences. They lose their security clearance. That means they lose their job
and can't get another one like it. In some cases that is pretty much career ending.
As long as Clinton can get elected to public office that requires access to classified data,
she can't be denied access simply based on mishandling such data in the past. The voters can elect
the representatives they want and have every right to make stupid choices. So basically Clinton
violated the law and is avoiding all consequences because she seeks to be an elected official,
not a government employee.
If Clinton manages to escape any consequences it will be because of voters. If she was criminally
prosecuted, maybe more voters would realize who they would be voting for, however there seems
to be lots of evidence that Hillary supporters just don't care that she is untrustworthy and puts
her own ambitions ahead of the country. It's not likely they haven't been presented with enough
evidence of that before now.
I think a big take-away here from watching this unfold is that the FBI director is correct in
his assertion that Clinton did not lie to the FBI. BUT because she was in charge she bears the
responsibility of information handled improperly.
From the questioning it was brought up that no actual documents classified or greater classification
were actually transmitted to/from her email server, BUT transcribed conversations (conversations
that happened in person between two or more individuals) that contained classified information
was. These message threads all originated from a person lower on the chain and then forwarded
around (not just to Clinton's server) through non-classified systems. Sometimes (like in many
forwarded emails) only portions of the original messages were maintained (this is common with
any forwarded and or quoted email in long chains) and a paragraph for instance would have a [C.]
marking at the beginning of the thread, but as it got forwarded around that message was quoted
and modified and the marking was removed by another individual (accidentally or on purpose, this
is unknown).
Comey stated that they are not actively investigated the origination of the email chains as
that was not part of their original investigation (this is somewhat interesting, but makes sense
as it was not in their original investigative scope)
Quote: When another officer who received the email raised the alarm about sending the
document over a nonsecure network, Brezler reported himself to his superiors and cooperated with
a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe into the classified material spillage. The probe
turned up another folder with some 106 documents marked secret. Brezler said he inadvertently
brought them back with him following his 2010 deployment to Now Zad, Afghanistan, where limited
resources sometimes meant Marines worked on their personal computers and thumb drives.
Quote: But a Marine prosecutor said this week that the case was about more than that
one communication with Marines in Afghanistan. Brezler knowingly kept classified documents to
inform a book he was writing about his Now Zad experiences, said Maj. Chip Hodge, showing that
Brezler had copied and pasted a paragraph from the Sarwar Jan document into his manuscript, "Rebirth
of Apocalypse Now Zad."
"... But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses
in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton or her team might have deleted a number of
work-related emails. ..."
But, when it comes to Clinton's correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain
unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton's email history? Did she or her team delete emails that
she should have made public?
Story Continued Below
The State Department has released what is said to represent all of the work-related, or "official,"
emails Clinton sent during her tenure as secretary-a number totaling about 30,000. According to Clinton
and her campaign, when they were choosing what correspondence to turn over to State for public release,
they deleted 31,830 other emails
deemed "personal and private."But a numeric analysis of the emails that have been
made public, focusing on conspicuous lapses in email activity, raises troubling concerns that Clinton
or her team might have deleted a number of work-related emails.
We already know that the trove of Clinton's work-related emails is incomplete. In his comments
on Tuesday, Comey
declared, "The FBI … discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group
of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014." We also already know that some
of those work-related emails could be permanently deleted. Indeed, according to Comey, "It is also
likely that there are other work-related e-mails that [Clinton and her team] did not produce to State
and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did
not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete
forensic recovery."
Why does this matter? Because Clinton
signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails. We now know that
is not true. But even more importantly, the absence of emails raises troubling questions about the
nature of the correspondence that might have been deleted.
Peter Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, senior editor at large
at Breitbart News and the author of
Clinton Cash.
"... it could hardly have gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe
pair of hands but she's now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security.
..."
"... If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address
and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence in our
nation's security apparatus. ..."
"... I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the law
(no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special DC people
have different rules than the common people! ..."
"... Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for her
despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private email server
or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's right about, and it's
all on the Dems this time. ..."
"... Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing? Then
let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him. ..."
"... Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators
didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too. ..."
"... Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is why
she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long. ..."
"... No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all about
nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could be the
subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. ..."
"... Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White
House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings. Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever
Voting For Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc ..."
"... I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations
to the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many Americans.
She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening. ..."
"... If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they the
FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use a private
e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used it but they illegally
deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved. Bush and Cheney and the Republican
Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer
dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. ..."
"... She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom
of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony. ..."
"... That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch
she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November. ..."
"... The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan
smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed as
a liar is because she is one. ..."
"......but Clinton's enemies will say yes. And that means the political witch hunts will begin
anew......".
This is no witch hunt. Aside from the fact that she wasn't indicted, it could hardly have
gone any worse for Hillary. Many people proclaimed that she was the safe pair of hands but she's
now been stamped with "extremely careless" with regards to national security. She's also,
yet again, been confirmed as a shameless liar. Her proclamation - in that tired, "bored teenager"
voice that she affects when she's boxed in to a corner - at that event: "I never sent any classified
information.....I never received any classified information" has been proven as a lie. The standard
that she was held to was that intent meant that she was a spy. The standard of intent that you
or I would have been held to would have been a heck of a lot lower.
Also, the law says that 'gross negligence' is enough to either fine someone or put them in
jail for not more than ten years or both: how is Hillary's 'extreme carelessness' is any way different
from 'gross negligence'? Everything that people suspected of Hillary Clinton has been borne out,
if not more (yesterday was the first I'd heard of *multiple* servers: how is that not intent to
circumvent the Freedom of Information Act?) but - yay! - the bar for presidential candidates is
now so staggeringly low that champagne corks are being popped because she avoided jail.
*Clap..........clap.............clap...........clap...........clap.........clap.......*
Raskente
If the FBI (at the time) did not know that Hillary Clinton was using a personal email address
and a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State, then I have lost all confidence
in our nation's security apparatus.
Iron Mike
I think it was good for the FBI to let Hillary Clinton off even though she violated the
law (no intent is no excuse). It actually takes the curtain down and the voters realize the special
DC people have different rules than the common people!
There is no telling what Bill told Loretta but it worked. I know they didn't discuss grand
kids for 30 minutes.
HungerArtist
In that way, Republican operatives have already accomplished their mission
Nope. Dems did this. None of this stuff today is new info, Dems nominated and voted for
her despite this investigation. Plus it was Clinton's fault, no one forced her to have a private
email server or an unsecured phone. I don't often agree with Trump, but this is one thing he's
right about, and it's all on the Dems this time.
erik_ny
Didn't the FBI director say most people would face consequences for this kind of thing?
Then let's Hillary off the hook.... Rather careless of him.
ga gamba
Seems about right. The Wall St bankers, credit ratings agencies, and government regulators
didn't intentionally destroy the world economy. They were simply "extremely careless", too.
One can be graduated from one of the world's finest law schools and still plausibly state that
she didn't intend to break the law. Seems law school trains people how to treat the law cavalierly.
Sure, she was informed she was flouting the rules, and she disregarded this each time, but this
is meaningless because the FBI is unable to read her mind. Ignore the actions because they suggest
nothing of a person's intent.
That's the privilege of power. You're never accountable.
Tom Cuddy
Once again with feeling. We know Sec Clinton won her delegates. She has achieved the numerical
feat of having enough delegates to be our nominee. And I see the tree coming closer and the brakes
are not working. This is why Sander's is not enthusiastically joining the Clinton effort as yet.
The party can stop from making a terrible mistake. I like Sec Clinton and believe she would make
a good Prime Minister. She is also exactly the kind of politician Trump eats for breakfast. We
are not unrealistic, we are not anti woman and we are not "Bros'. We just see Sanders as giving
Trump a serious campaign and Hillary just being , not quite.... The question; do Americans fear
Clinton or Trump more. The great unpopulated states ( y'know, the Red one's) are terrified of
Clinton. DEmocrats ( and a few Republicans) are terrified of trump. This truly shows Plato's point
about Democracy
Shotcricket -> Tom Cuddy
Sanders is what the US need but are told they don't, not unlike the UK in its portrayal of
Parties & their leaders etc.
Robert Rudolph
Hillary's arrogance, not "Republican operatives," put her in this hole. The question is
why she ignored her own agency's regulations, and for so long.
Did Hillary want to evade normal channels because she was using her official position to lever
money out of people? Follow the money, people....
Dee Smith
I wish to humbly apologize in advance to the other nations that inhabit this earth on what
the US is about to unleash on our collective space. Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated she is a money
and power grasping disingenuous liar, complicit in the murder of US citizens, and not bearing
the sense that the good Lord gave a woodchuck in handling information that ought to be more protected
than storing it on an unsecured server in a basement. Conversely, we have Mr. Trump, whom, while
opening up a very necessary dialog for myself and my American brethren, demonstrates all the sensitivity
of rampaging water buffalo at a wallow.
Dear God, help us.
SteveofCaley -> Dee Smith
Don't fret. They already suspected, I think. Another day, another drone.
devanand54
The FBI did a lot more than rebuke her for being "extremely careless." It was a scathing report,
the conclusion of which was not consistent with what was actually in the report. It also proved
Clinton to - once again - be lying.
Dale Roberts
No one really believes that Hilary thinks any of the rules apply to her, so this is all
about nothing. She was able to dispose of about half of her e-mails before there destruction could
be the subject of obstruction of justice charges, so she skates there too. I recall a couple
of military officers who were brought up on charges for failing to lock their safe containing
classified material in a secure building. The nightly security sweep found the safe closed but
combination lock had not been engaged. Eventually no one was prosecuted but the matter was handled
administratively so neither was likely to ever see another promotion. Being a politician may save
Hilary from this fate too.
DebraBrown
Oh, enough of the balony that we don't trust Hillary because of her gender. We don't trust
her because she LIES, again and again, demonstrably and proveably, beyond any shadow of doubt.
Both the IG Report and Comey confirm her lies about the email server.
Comey's decision is purely practical, given America's two-tiered justice system. The wealthy
class are virtually un-indictable, they can get away with any crime because they hire armies of
lawyers. It is sickening.
After being a loyal party member for 35 years, I am leaving the Democratic Party because Hillary
Clinton is a bridge too far. God save America... from the Clintons.
eminijunkie
Odd. No mention of the fact that like Bill, who got nailed for lying under oath, albeit he
only lost his lawyer's license and gained some fame for having said 'it all depends on the meaning
of the word is,' Hillary is now shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed perjury. As
far as I know though, that's only something Congress can deal with at this point.
We should hear soon if they are going to do anything about it.
Balmaclellan
The case ultimately comes down to a matter of intent, something famously difficult to
prove. Did Clinton intentionally send out or receive any sensitive information?
The Guardian seriously expects people to pay for this 'jourrnalism'? Seriously?
Clinton was the Secretary of State. How could she fail to "intentionally send out or receive sensitive
information"? What the case actually comes down to is whether she intentionally placed the sensitive
information she was sending out and receiving on a private server in order to conceal it from
scrutiny and specifically to evade the provisions of Freedom of Information.
And no, I won't be subscribing.
Balmaclellan
Some of it may be attributable to poor optics... attributable to gender... partisan-fueled
attacks...
Alternatively, it could simply be that she's a pathological liar. You know, the sort of person
who tells stupid, pointless lies for the purpose of self-aggrandisement, and then bone-headedly
continues to insist that they're true even when they've been incontrovertibly proven to be lies.
"Yah, the plane zig-zagged as it landed under sniper fire... I ran across the tarmac dodging
bullets..."
BigPhil1959 -> Balmaclellan
Her husband was accused of rape and had sexual relations with an intern. She trashed the reputations
of these women to protect her husband. I doubt neither May nor Leadsom have ever played the woman's
card as Hilary Clinton has. The Clinton's are awful people and should be banned from public office.
badfinger
Flox Newts asks the tough questions:
1. What is the Statute of Limitations?
2. What about the Clinton Foundation?
Watch for a bogus "investigation" of the Foundation soon.
Brought to you by the GOP at taxpayers expense.
Filipe Barroso -> badfinger
A bogus investigation on a Foundation that would make the Mafia embarrassed? No way, they are
too compromised for that and the Clinton's would be able to bought their way off anyway.
BigPhil1959 -> badfinger
Christopher Hitchen's wrote a great deal on the Clinton's when they were last in the White
House. He was scathing about them and their corrupt dealings.
Christopher Hitchens' Case Against Ever Voting For Hillary Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDQxfDeWRc
Sadly no longer with us, but a proper journalist.
Alpheus Williams
"Careless" with classified material...certainly careless with the facts...careless with promoting
the bombing of M.E. countries. Her record on Iraq, Syria and Libya don't instil confidence....Europe
is overwhelmed with refugees from war and chaos from our making and Clinton's judgement certainly
hasn't helped. She has not only managed to spot the Nation but there own political party.
I've never seen the DNC struggle so hard to support a disaster. Shady smoke around donations to
the Clinton Foundation and arms deals certainly haven't made her any more trustworthy to many
Americans. She not a disaster waiting to happen...she's a disaster happening.
WMDMIA
If the FBI were to charge Clinton for using her private e-mail for government work they
the FBI would have to charge Bush and several hundred of his employee's. Not only did they use
a private e-mail server but it was run by the National Republican Committee. They not only used
it but they illegally deleted at least 5 million government E-mails that by law had to be saved.
Bush and Cheney and the Republican Nation Committee did this to cover up multiple crimes related
to hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayer dollars as well as activities into 9/11 and the invasion
of Iraq.
Beside these government protected account are hacked far more often than private servers, so
the information she passed on was safer where she had it.
simonsaysletsgroove -> jsayles
From what I read elsewhere, it wasn't an 'accidentally leaving files on a bus' scenario...
She DELIBERATELY set up the home server to try and keep her emails out of the reach of Freedom
of Information Act requests. ... Calculated felony.
kaltnadel
If Hillary had any integrity, she would step down in the face of being deemed "extremely careless"
by the director of the FBI. Clearly she is unsuitable for a position of responsibility.
Being better than Trump is not good enough.
"Witch hunt" is a totally inappropriate phrase. HC has been close to felons over and over again
for decades. She lies as she breathes; she speaks in vapidities; she laughs without a glimmer
of what good humor is. She is not only bad, she is dangerous. If she has avoided out and out criminality
herself, she has her Yale law degree to thank for that, not her moral compass. And she has not
a grain of political ambition that isn't personal to herself.
Someone should help her to realize that she ought to step down, and it clearly isn't going
to be Obama.
Metreemewall
Never mind her husband, her carelessness, her snipe's fire dodging skills, her gender.
She's a warmonger - "We came , we saw, he died"a - was her giggling reaction to the news of
Gaddaff being sodomised and murdered. And she is an AIPAC tool. And she's partly responsible for
the immoral profitable prisons' scheme. And she does not believe in universal healthcare. And
she's putting her "Glass-Steagall" poster child of a husband in charge of the economy.
And the list goes on, and on, and on...
elliot2511
"Bill Clinton bumbled his way into the eye of a political storm last week when a private meeting
he arranged with Lynch"
That is absolutely ****ing outrageous, as is the fact Hillary has apparently promised Lynch
she'll be re-appointed AG in the event she is elected come November.
If this sort of thing had occurred in, say, Bolivia or Kazakhstan, everyone would know what
was going on and be able able to see this behaviour for what it is. The contemptible idiocy and
demagoguery of Trump doesn't change that.
keeptakingthetablets
The reason why Clinton is viewed as liar is not because she is a woman, or because of partisan
smears or because of the fact that she has had a long political career. The reason she is viewed
as a liar is because she is one.
Just to take this particular issue as an example, she lied when she said she would fully cooperate
"anytime, anywhere' with the respective inquiries and she lied when she said she had permission
to use a private email server.
Slammy01
I don't see the matter of intent as a particularly relevant factor here. She has an obligation
to protect classified information as part of being granted access. James Comey said she and her
aids were "extremely careless" with how they handled information which any reasonable person in
that situation would recognize was classified. Any other person would already have been indited....
calderonparalapaz
compared the case to that of retired general David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, who
was sentenced to twoyears' probation after he shared classified information with his biographer,
with whom he was having an affair. . "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for
far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."
Looks like the Democratic establishment decided that they wants Clinton in November no matter what.
But the price of this decition si that she will now compete as officially named "reckless and stupid"
candidate.
An interesting side affect might be that there will be attempts to impeach her from day one.
Notable quotes:
"... How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct? I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz? ..."
"... "Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection." ..."
"... After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS - it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State. ..."
"... Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration. ..."
"... Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and genocides if this woman is elected. ..."
"... The NYTimes, 2 days ago: ..."
"... But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her email server. This is now proven. ..."
"... She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie. ..."
"... She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie. ..."
"... She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie. ..."
"... She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie. ..."
"... "110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE TIME;" ..."
"... I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes, and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president. ..."
"... Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law, and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur. ..."
"... The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling. ..."
"... This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's what we all welcome - an extremely careless president. ..."
"... Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945). ..."
"... First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law. ..."
"... Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every answer beforehand. But, anyways. ..."
"... They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not, or seek a plea bargain. ..."
"... Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges, then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is enough to indict. But no... ..."
"... She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet, according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency than she. ..."
"... the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies! ..."
"... Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal and a huge breach of security. ..."
"... Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people think they are above the law. ..."
In violation of the Espionage Act. The relevant part of the law, 18 USC 793, says that anyone
who handles important national security documents with "gross negligence," so that they are "delivered
to anyone," or "lost," or "stolen," is guilty of a felony.
The guilty party "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both."
18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession
or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper
place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper
place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Comey called her "extremely careless." But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent
with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign
powers. But that's not what the statute requires.
18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes
[classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents
or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety
or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified information in a
manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully
and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly, Hillary meant to
remove classified materials from government control.
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's huckster-populism:
a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the cap on taxes to
do so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US has waged in the
past 25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the starvation blockade
and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention them but in passing in a recent speech
before AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and believes Edward
Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international pact
granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its expense in the past 25
years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the objectively-racist
death penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the '90s, making them
easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec. of State actively
campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to 60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents
an hour sounded better for the investor class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever release the Wall
Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters, who aren't.
"Even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, participants who know, or should know,
that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it," Mr. Comey said, suggesting
that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive,
highly classified information."
Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her,
that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification
is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or
sources.
SEE A PATTERN HERE ?
"no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (FBI/CNN). that's a lie. anyone in a working
situation who lie so many times, and in so many different ways would be terminated. for Clinton
to become the next US President is an absolute moral disaster - which will haunt not only America,
but generations of young people watching this moral deception unfold.
Bernie did not lose. He was run over by the corrupt establishment of the Dem. Party. He didn/t
take their money, & condemned them for their undemocratic manipulations.
BlooperMario
She is a symbol of American hegemony and globalisation.
The East is rebelling and so is Europe.
Shamerica has been exposed as liars and cheats.
Poverty in Asia was promoted in order for USA to rule.
Regime change in Europe and Middle East created to support Lockheed-Martin , Boeing, and military
financial machinery.
Time for Europe to disconnect from Washington; link with Asia where the future will come very
soon.
Stop Uncle Sam's Navy and Air Force provoking China and Russia.
Hilary needs to go to Laos and Vietnam to clear minefields and unexploded bombs that US is responsible
for.
Chirographer
Comey offers his opinion that "no reasonable prosecutor" would press charges, but the dividing
line is between a finding that Clinton did wrong and was "extremely careless" is that she was
not "grossly negligent."
That's a judgment call to be made by the 'reasonable prosecutors" in the DOJ. It's not for
the FBI to prejudge that for them.
In a case like this the decision would normally be made by the AG. But, she had already announced
she would not be able to do her job in the circumstances- her chit chat with Bill tainted her
impartiality - and the decision whether or not to prosecute would be made by senior level career
prosecutors. Apparently the FBI wasn't interested in what the people charged with the responsibility
to make the decision would think.
Finally, for some unexplained reason, the FBI Director felt he had to make his statement today
without the DOJ's knowledge. Doesn't the FBI operate under the DOJ?
What a mess.
ExKStand
I think this shows you how scared the establishment in the U.S. is of Trump taking up power.
Save them from organising a black operation against him. No way should Hiliary be exonerated in
this way. In a democracy this should be for a court to decide, not the FBI. Hard to see how a
fair court could find her not guilty of at least incompetence.
kiwijams
Are their Clinton supporters who can read through this entire saga and still think she has
a high degree of integrity and honesty? By all means vote for her because she isn't Trump, but
surely you can't think this woman is all that trustworthy?
GrandmasterFlasher
Hillary is too big to fail, and too big to jail. There are too many vested interests invested
in the megalomaniac for charges to be laid.
funnynought
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied that none of her emails were classified at the time of
sending/receiving. This stinks.
Bill Clinton didn't have a "chance meeting" with Loretta Lynch, but walked across the tarmac
and boarded her plane to talk. Hillary Clinton has misleadingly characterized numerous times how
the two met, even with Lynch's own account out in the press. This stinks.
Lynch had the option of refusing to talk with Bill Clinton for the sake of avoiding conflict
of interest. She didn't. This stinks.
Just days after her husband met Lynch, Hillary Clinton was called into the FBI for a meeting,
on the quietest news weekend of the year till Thanksgiving. This stinks.
Somehow, after a mere 3 days of deliberating--over a holiday weekend--the FBI came to a recommendation.
This stinks.
The recommendation was no charges. This stinks.
The recommendation lays heavy emphasis on her intention, not on her negligence with classified
information. This stinks.
If elected president, Hillary Clinton is "considering" retaining Lynch as Attorney General.
Quid pro quo. This stinks.
President Hillary Clinton: "I didn't really mean to leak the nuclear codes to ISIS in Libya.
My bad. I didn't have bad intentions, though." This stinks.
"The buck stops here." -Democratic President Harry Truman. This doesn't stink.
Shardz
Meanwhile, feel free to leak any government documents you might have and see how lenient the
FBI will be with your case. I guarantee you will be in federal prison before dusk. Hillary was
not authorized to set up an external mail server no matter what the status was with those documents.
More Liberal ridiculousness.
Britaining
So Hillary carelessly voted for Iraqi war, carelessly pushed the Libya/Syria civil wars, carelessly
paved the way for Benghazi attack and refugee crisis in EU.......but liberal idiots won't care.
Anyway, she made a special contribution to Brexit, just like theGuardian's smarty pants.
Michronics42
This decision is deeply disappointing but not surprising as the late Carl Sagan observed:
" One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend
to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth.
The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that
we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
The FBI's partial exoneration of Hillary comes with this proviso: "Although we did not find
clear evidence that the Secretary or colleagues intended to violate laws, [of course has been
clearly documented that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing
1)by lying that she received government permission to set up her private servers and
2)knowing full well that she would evade FOIA requests by destroying thousands of these emails]there
is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of highly classified information,
said Comey."
For those Clinton, Inc supporters who continue to support this "congenital liar," and longtime
"charlatan," this just the latest 'careless' episode in the deeply troubling career of a sociopath
who craves power way more than she cares about the nation she may one day govern.
I'll always Feel the Bern and I'll always support those who will continue the fight for reform.
jimmy coleman
Praise the mosquitoes in a Louisiana swamp, Ms. Hillary is innocent. She didn't know what she
was doing!! On several levels I can believe that. We can now all sleep better just knowing the
Clinton's once again dodged a close one, like the time Ms. Hillary and Chelsea dodged gunfire
in Bosnia. We are told to believe that no reasonable prosecutor, from Maine to Texas, from Alaska
to Florida, from the moon to Pluto would dare try the fair lady.
Ms. Hillary may not know what she twas doing after she signed the pledge not to do such a thing,
she may have misspoken like she did when traveling in Bosnia or talking about the Benghazi video
to the victim's families. She may have used bad judgment, ad infinitum, slept through the burning
of the midnight oil as Rome burned and been a lousy administrator of the nation's secrets but
add, according to the latest legalese, Ms. Hillary ain't guilty of deliberately knowing what she
was doing!! She can do more harm in ignorance than a smart person can do on purpose!
For those of you working in the computer security field, your job has just become easier, for
now nothing, absolutely nothing one can do with classified or even Top Secret information can
be considered criminal. If the prospective Democratic nominee, perhaps our next Great Leader of
the 'free' world, can do what the FBI Director himself said she did, then none of the underlings
should have a fear to face or a hefty price to pay for emulating the shenanigans of Ms. Hillary.
Ain't this country great. If you got money and power - where you can send your disbarred, impeached
hubby to visit secretly for half an hour with the chief law enforcement official, all the while
the FBI G-men shoo away pesky reporters with cameras rolling - and then two days later those same
G-men interview the prez-in-waiting, - with just a one day interval in-between the FBI Director
can say to the country, with a straight face, that 'no reasonable prosecutor in the whole wide
country would convict Ms. Hillary.... And if that don't beat all, while the FBI is talking to
the nation, Ms. Hillary and the other guy,...... oh yes, Mr. Obama, who promised us to run the
most transparent and honest government in the nation's history, strap themselves in Air Force
One to go campaigning together. And if that wasn't enough poop through a goose, a big chunk of
the unwashed masses swallowed what was said and done, hook, line and stinker!!
I wouldn't rule Bernie out quite yet! The superdelegates don't like liars!
TheRealCopy
"Several thousand work related emails were not among those returned to the government and appeared
to have been deleted"!
How does the FBI know what was in the e-mails apparently missing if they were deleted?
It appears to be a political decision not to charge her for security breached and they won't
charge her because she's who she is and in the middle of a campaign as POTUS nominee for the Democratic
Party!
To put the matter into perspective, Remember what happened to General Petreaus! A top notch
war commander completely destroyed over breaching information security on a much smaller scale!
ericsony
Talk about friends in high places....Watch the Clinton chronicles on you tube.. what these
people get away with is amazing...If it was made into a film you would think it was a bit too
far fetched!!
CaliforniaLilly -> ericsony
Time to watch a classic movie: The Manchurian Candidate. Love the original one with Angela
Lansbury. But, good time to see it. Trust me.
"Extremely careless" just the kind of person you need with the finger on the button.
ID8020624
The 15 minute press interview w/ the FBI, however, was vey revealing, but not duplicated here.
She was shown to be the careless arrogant system-girl that she is. W-leaks just published 1000
of her emails for all to see,...go see for yourselves.
Bot candidates have highest unfavorable ratings ever recorded in US history. This is not right:
over 60% of voters neither support nor Trump!
The Oligarchic rule is stripped naked for all to see. US people are not that dumb not to see
a couple crooks running to rule over them,...
Vote Green! Vote Stein!
Unfortunately Bernie is busy trimming party platform that has never been followed by any Dem
president.
Robb1324
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful
mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way
as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United
States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
How is having your own private server for Secretary of State business not any of these
things? What is the purpose of having your own email server if not for intentional misconduct?
I imagine it costs a fair amount to set up and then run, did she just set it up for the lulz?
Is there a benefit to having your own email server to conduct department business on other
than skirting FOIA requests and internal oversight?
"Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did
– recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked on Top Secret information on
it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally
charged long ago, with little fuss or objection."
time2plyBsides -> Nelson Ricardo
I worked in IT for the U.S. gov't. Everybody has to take the trainings for IT and data protocol.
The lowliest cleaning staff who merely dust a laptop. The highest ranked general. They are VERY
serious about it.
There are specific rules for which communications go over which networks. If Hilary wants to
log on to her gov't computer, the system must register that she took the training or she will
be locked out. Let me be clear: THERE IS NO WAY THE SEC. OF STATE DID NOT KNOW ALL DoS BUSINESS
ALWAYS MUST STAY ON SECURE GOV. NETWORK. She would have had that drilled into her head by then.
She is a lawyer. She knows all Sec. of State emails are archived to protect the People from
malfeasance. She intentionally side-stepped protocol. There is no other reasonable explanation
IMO.
eminijunkie
""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME
it was sent and received,..."
Same sentence parsed properly: " I know i sent and received classified information, so I can't
say I didn't, but I need to make it sound like I didn't know what I was doing in an nice, innocent
way, so I'll say I was 'confident that I didn't because I think that's the safest thing I can
say to seem to deny the possibility of doing what i know I did."
Goias Goias -> CriticAtLarge
After the FBI qualifying Hillary as extremely careless - precisely while acting as SoS
- it sounds silly to hear Obama saying she was a great Secretary of State.
Bo1964
A decade ago CIA claimed Iraq of WMD, now FBI recommends 'no charges' against Hillary. All
collusions to please the bosses!
Brockenhexe
Well, Comey just secured his job in a Clinton administration.
Brendan Groves
Hillary has been careless with her emails, careless with her votes for the Iraq war, and very
careless with her husband. all of this carelessness does not bode well for a future President.
shaftedpig
Hitlery is just another establishment bankster cartel stooge/puppet. Expect more wars and
genocides if this woman is elected.
johhnybgood
Proof if any is needed, that the US Administration, together with its Judiciary and its law
enforcement agencies, are criminally negligent. The elites are above the law, just like the banks.
This may well be the tipping point that sends Trump and Sanders supporters over the edge.
rochestervandriver -> MtnClimber
"The head of the FBI is a Republican, btw."
This is what he is (below) so no wonder people think the fix is in. Obama appointed him , republican
or not. He's a "Business as usual" man. I guess he hopes that Trump doesn't get elected as I'm
sure this story will not end here.
Anyway, this will cost Hilary on the campaign trail . Trump will rip chunks out of her with
this.
In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago,
close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak
grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005,
Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin.
In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater
to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School.
He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings. In 2013, Comey was appointed
as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.
Whether it's putting the Bush/Cheney crime family in prison for an illegal war and thousands
of innocent deaths, or HRC in prison for Bengazi and releasing sensitive documents, y'all are
starting to see what's wrong in this nation. It's a nation of crooked professional politicians,
family dynasties run by the 1% and the banksters... Welcome to the land of the free. Free for
the wolves to eat our souls.
Clinton is not above the law. If the GOP really thinks they have a legitimate case then Speaker
Ryan and the other members can impeach her if she wins. The reality is it is game over since it
is only GOP partisans who are interested in pursuing this. I think it would be a repeat of the
last time with the Senate laughing at the House for their stupidity. Everyone knows that neither
Clinton nor Trump are honest. The Democrats don't see it as a real issue. Bernie Sanders said
he does not care about "her damn emails".
Both the GOP and the Democrats are more intent on partisanship than in talking about ideas
on how to improve the government and society. Sanders was different and I think a lot of his supporters
felt that it wasn't just about him. Both Trump and Clinton do not have strong morals and it is
a bit sad.
Leviathan212
I'm glad Hillary is not being indicted, and I'm happy that we still have a viable candidate
against Donald Trump.
But, can we now at least admit that she lied, repeatedly and comprehensively, about her
email server. This is now proven.
- She said there was no classified info on her email. This was a lie.
- She said everything was allowed per State Dept rules. This was a lie.
- She said the server was never hacked and remained secure. This was a lie.
- She said that she turned over all her emails. This was a lie.
People are so blinded by their worship of a candidate that they are willing to ignore blatant
wrong-doing. This is how moral and ethical corruption happens. Try admitting the truth to yourself
- it's okay to say, "Yes, I support Hillary Clinton, but I can also see how she lied in these
instances".
RealWavelengths
if an average worker at, say, a bank would have been caught using a private email account to
conduct bank business, and some of those emails contained unsecured, confidential bank customer
info that could have been at risk for interception by identity theft crime rings, that worker
would have been in violation of several laws. And if subsequently it turns out that employee deleted
some of those emails and claimed they did not contain customer data but were personal, it is doubtful,
given other evidence, the employee would have gotten away with just scolding words from the FBI.
At least a fine would be levied, and perhaps a prohibition from working with confidential financial
data again. Here, Clinton just got scolded, and that's it. Clearly, this is a problem with high
ranking elected and appointed officials, and yet many of us somehow keep letting these people
get into office. We should indeed let our voices be heard online in various ways that enough is
more than enough. Time to get rid of the revolving door of past corrupt officials getting back
into office with the same corrupt ethics. Both parties are trash. There's a better way…
Georwell
"...is Ian Bremmer who said that "it's very clear that in trying to make it go away actually
lied, repeatedly, about whether or not these materials were classified at the time. And it's the
cover up frequently that gets people in trouble, it's not the actual misdeed. This was very badly
mishandled by Hillary all the way through."
But then she got some much needed help from the FBI to complete the cover up.
In retrospect, perhaps former Attorney General Eric Holder said it best when he justified with
the US DOJ simply refuses to bring up criminal cases against those it deems "too big to prosecute":
if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps
world economy
And just like that, Hillary is "systemically important", if mostly for her countless Wall Street
donors. "
Welcome foreign countries. You will soon be able to know everything you need to know about
thrUS if Hillary becomes President. Will need a larger bedroom or basement for her server which
of course the White House has. The head of the FBI says although statutes may have been broken,
it is no big deal. We don't need them anyway. Good to know, so if anyone wants to break statutes
in the future, they just need to ask the FBI for the Hillary deal. Poor people of Washington D.C.
Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse then the poisoned water in Flint, or the Green
Algae in Southern Florida, the toxic smell of whitewashing covers D.C. Stay indoors, take precautions,
donate to the Clinton Foundation, because this could last for years.
Leviathan212
So, Bill Clinton meets with Loretta Lynch and four days later the FBI recommends no charges?
I'm not saying that there was any corruption - mainly because I have a high enough opinion
of Loretta Lynch's integrity (and not of Bill Clinton's). But the optics are not good. It further
fuels the idea that the Clintons play fast and loose with the rules and are morally and ethically
compromised.
virginiacynic -> boscovee
No one should ever, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer (preferably two lawyers) and a Tape
Recorder.
The FBI will not record it and instead write up a summary of what was said and ask the person
to sign the summary. If the person subsequently says something contrary to the FBI summary then
that person can be charged with lying to the FBI.
It was not overkill when the FBI had eight people. It was good sense and good lawyering by Clinton's
Counsel once it had been decided to talk with them. If she were not running for President then
any sane lawyer would have said to take the fifth, just as the guy who set up the server system
did.
greg2644
For all of you guys who are up in arms about this decision, let's pretend for a second that
serious classified information did get out from her server. Even if that were true, involuntary
treason is not a crime. Intent matters in a court of law. All of the things Hillary is being accused
of are only crimes if she intended for information to get out. There's no proof that she did,
so they can't charge her with anything. This decision shouldn't surprise anyone. Politicians are
untouchable unless they're caught with blood on their hands... and even then...
Vladimir Makarenko -> greg2644
It's called "criminal negligence". The stress is on the word "criminal". If she couldn't have
understood after had been told many times the rules of separation of private from government emails
how she can be trusted with Red Button?
As minimum JD must withdraw her clearance. She can apply for a job at her "foundation".
Georwell
so Hitlary declare she never sent any classifieds documents
""I am confident I never sent nor received any information that was classified AT THE TIME it
was sent and received,..." (Hitlary )
BUT next we get this from FBI :
"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified
information AT THE TIME they were sent or received. EIGHT of those chains contained information
that was TOP SECRET AT THE TIME they were sent; 36 chains contained SECRET information AT THE
TIME;"
Its this incompetence or just THE MOST corrupt system ever ?
ghostintheshell29
"An indictment could have wrecked Clinton's election hopes and perhaps opened the door for
Donald Trump to become president."
I think they got that backwards, An Indictment would destroy Clinton's election hopes,
and opened the door for Bernie Sanders to become president.
Its a lot easier for Trump to beat Hillary then Bernie. People actually like him.. Huge advantage
over both other opponents.
RealWavelengths -> Joe Smith
Actually, laws were broken. Comey just chose not to prosecute because, in his and his staff's
opinion, no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the matter, which is in the discretion of the prosecutor
to do. But Obama himself issued an executive order in 2009, "Executive Order 13526- Classified
National Security Information," that deals at length with the handling of various levels of classified/top
secret data by top officials and others they designate. An executive order has the force of law,
and Obama specified various sanctions and penalties that violations can occur.
As Secretary of State, Hillary was considered an "Original classification authority," which
is a top ranking official that not only handles such data, but classifies and declassifies it.
The order even includes sanctions for "reckless" handling of classified data, and Comey used
the term "reckless." Why those sanctions were not applied here is baffling.
America's two-tiered justice system strikes again. One rule of law for the masses, a very different
set of rules for the elite.
However one may feel regarding whether or not Hillary committed crimes, one thing is absolutely
clear -- she lied.
Comey listed a number of points which prove beyond doubt that she lied. For instance, she said
she never sent or rec'd anything marked classified at the time. Per Comey, there were seven (known)
email strings that were clearly marked classified at the time.
The Inspector General's report also made it clear beyond doubt that Hillary lied about her
use of the email server, point by point by point refuting everything she said about its use. And
yet, after the IG report came out, Hillary went on air to say how happy she was that the IG report
validated everything she'd been saying (though the opposite is true).
This woman is a dangerous sociopathic liar. I say that as a feminist and registered Democrat
for 35 years who voted for her husband in the 1990's. Yes, I'm afraid of what Trump might do as
president. But I am MORE afraid of what Hillary will do. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.
gvs951
"Extremely Careless" - that's a great defense for a potential president of the USA. That's
what we all welcome - an extremely careless president.
Sarah7
FBI Director James Comey stated the following, which makes it clear that the investigation
of Hillary Clinton and her top aides is a very 'special case' that would not pass the standard
statutory criteria:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged
in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject
to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. (Emphasis
added)
Now, to be really, really clear: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal
than others.' ~~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945).
theguardianread
Forgot to say that mishandling US Official communications is a crime-- there is NO WAY TO KNOW
IF AN INCOMING COMMUNICATION IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT, ESP AT THAT LEVEL, EVERYTHING IS CLASSIFIED
BY THE "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS" RULE. No matter how unimportant it may seem to you, it is part
of the bigger picture of responsibility...
Goias Goias
I am listening to Hillary giving a speech and she hasn't mentioned a word about the FBI declarations.
Can she really think her bulshit is above answering for being called extremely careless by the
FBI?
KlaatuVerataNiktu -> Goias Goias
Being high-ranking in the establishment means never having to say you're sorry.
Goias Goias Goias Goias
Even Obama is looking ridiculous building up Hillary after the FBI wiped the floor with her
credibility.
MARK Corrales
So by this rational it is okay to break the law and violate national security protocols as
long as its unintentional. WOW! The political elite do not have to worry about any kind of accountability
for there actions.
Jessica Roth -> Stu Wragg
It's not so much her wealth, but how she got it. When you're in the pay of the Saudis/MIC/Wall
Street, the US government looks out for you.
Seriously, she swears under oath that she's turned over all her emails, it eventuates that
there are thousands more emails, but the FBI goes "no big, don't worry"? I didn't know that the
federal perjury statutes had been wiped off of the books. Perhaps Hillary sent me an email, but
I missed it?
Snowden gets exiled, Manning gets tortured…Clinton gets a coronation. Yes, very fair.
I urge everyone to vote for Jill Stein. Nothing can be done about this election (Trump, despite
his manifest flaws, is the more honest candidate and the peace candidate, but he has very little
chance of winning), but by getting Stein/the Greens to 5%, there is an opportunity for the left
to be properly heard next time, rather than the same corrupt dance between the two halves of the
Money Party. It's the only way to deny Clinton the second term she's already planning.
Yuri Esev -> zepov
Quote: ...love people who think that because Comey is a Republican, that this means that he
tried everything he could to reach an indictment. He's TELLING YOU that he's choosing not to.
Some people refuse to acknowledge this simple reality:
If there is one thing that democrats and republicans *always* agree on, it's helping big business
to buy our politicians wholesale so that they can continue to redirect money away from the most
electorate, and towards big business and the existing political establishment. In this case, it
means putting the first lady of Goldman Sachs in the White House Unquote
Carpasia
First, the FBI decides whether to indict, not whether to prosecute. It is not part of its
proper remit to decide not to indict on the supposition that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
That is end-running the legal system of a nation ruled by law.
Second, whether or not Hillary Clinton could mount a defense of carelessness is not a concern
of the FBI, though they act as if they know the mind of Hillary Clinton. I realize they interviewed
her yesterday or something. I would hazard she knew every question beforehand and they knew every
answer beforehand. But, anyways.
I believe Hillary Clinton fully intended to break the law, that law being the Freedom of Information
Act under which her emails were capable of being publicized upon request after vetting for, among
other things, how classified they were. Only a fool would think otherwise given the information
she had and the use of a private server in the face of that information.
I do not think she intended to break laws concerning effectively risking the loss and publication
of classified security materials by using an unsecured private server for her email.
Thus, what she did resulted in the risk of loss of classified materials that would never have
been lost if she had stayed within the government system, which laws she broke, one intentionally
and one carelessly, so journalists could not read her other unclassified emails, for they would
never have seen the classified ones.
At best, she was ignorant of the law on classified materials while intending to break the law
on access to information.
This bodes well if she is elected a President of the United States, for it will put paid to
the vaunted myth the Americans ceaselessly tell the rest of the world, that it is a nation in
which no one is above the law. This is the truth. Hillary and Barack having a laugh at The Donald.
Its great to see this investigation come to an end so quickly after such a long process.
June 27th Bill speaks with Lynch
July 2nd FBI interviews Hillary
July 5th FBI clears Hillary
ClearItUp
They all lie even Comey. He was there and with straight face saying what Clinton did didn't
rise to the level of prosecution. Nonsense, for even smaller infractions the FBI refers prosecution
to the DOJ. DOJ in these cases depending on mostly resources, decides if to prosecute or not,
or seek a plea bargain.
For what she did, at a minimum she would have been charged with something to cause her to agree
to a plea bargain, the terms of which would have been at a minimum not being able to receive classified
information, i.e. losing her security clearance. If she were not running for president, I have
no doubt she would have plea bargained to that level and admitted she broke the law.
But in the infinite wisdom of the FBI, they decided not to pursue her because just charging
her with anything would have ended her campaign for presidency. The punishment would have been
greater than the crime, again in their mind. So they didn't charge her. They would have even charged
Hillary Clinton if she wasn't running for president. This was a political decision no matter how
you look at it.
dongerdo
Critically, the FBI said that other similar cases in which a prosecution had been sought
involved evidence of "willful or intentional" breaches of the rules, "vast quantities" of data
or "indications of disloyalty or efforts to obstruct justice". "We do not see that here," he
said.
Interesting. Considering all those things are actually applicable, it was intentional, it involved
a lot of mails concerning Libya, she made an effort to keep it secret and tried to delete rather
large quantities and therefore has been obstructing justice I am curious if they would still 'Do
not see that here' if the opponent would not be called Trump....
Adoniran
"Nonetheless the detail of the FBI's investigation is likely to hit Clinton politically. Comey
revealed that of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were
determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent."
Just add it to the list of lies that she told about this.
From the FBI:
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended
to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they
were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
So I guess we have different standards of intent for her than we do for the rest of us. That
intent to commit an action that is felonious would be enough for anyone else. For Clinton though,
it seems she needed to intend to break the law knowingly, otherwise she's immune. But wait, even
if we use that lofty, specialized standard, more from the FBI:
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's
position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding
about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
..........So why, again, are we not indicting?
ClearItUp
If a government agent takes a folder of classified (not even talking about highly classified)
information and leaves them on a counter in a public restroom, then after say a few hours remembers
and goes and retrieves it, he will be charged with neglect or mishandling classified information.
Depending on what the information and intent was, they could be charged anywhere from a misdemeanor
to a felony with possible years in jail. If this act occurs multiple time by the same individual
not being charged with something is unusual, even in cases of unintentional confidential information.
The usual outcome for such unintentional negligence, if they are minor is plea bargain in which
the subject gives up his/her security clearance for a period of time or permanently.
Hillary Clinton by Comey's own admission violated the law, but they decided no to pursue prosecution.
Because, the penalty would have been too strong in her case, i.e. dropping out of nomination.
This is the real story. It was a political judgement, no two ways about it.
venkatt
The Farce of a Presidential nomination cycle is now complete. The billionaire Donor class has
officially INSTALLED its "Chosen One" on the American Masses...
Lester Smithson
The Clinton propensity for ethical shortcuts, special treatment, statute dodging (they are
both Yale-educated lawyers), and supreme entitlement are eclipsed by the last GOP president ($7T
war, and wrecking the economy) and the prospect of Trump, whose potential for destruction in near
infinite.
Clinton dodged this one. She'll destroy Trump and the next ethically challenged foot in the
dung is just around the corner. It's the Clinton way.
Jill Stein 2016
skatterbrayn
Everything he said pronounced her guilt, you'd think he was about to announce charges,
then no charges. He even described her actions as gross negligence using other words, which is
enough to indict. But no...
Another win for the oligarchy and queen of the weapons industry. I fear for families in the
Middle East if she is POTUS. Get ready to go play in the desert again troops.
A sad day for justice in America. The Guardian must be thrilled though. Congratulations. I'm
sure Lucia will write a a great nyah nyah piece about this. Pat yourselves on the back, your queen
of global intervention skated on something others have been destroyed for.
callingallcars
People are attracted to Trump because he is not a member of the political establishment, viewed
by many as incorrigibly corrupt and discredited. Ironically, the decision not to prosecute Clinton
will enhance the prospect of Trump's being elected, because it reinforces widespread views in
the public that political elites like Clinton can act with impunity and are immune from the laws
that apply to the rest of us. If Trump is elected, Clinton only has her own bad judgment to blame.
Using a private server for email and effectively stealing the public record is conduct that one
only does if one actually feels immune to the rules that the rest of us must follow. Her arrogance
may well lead to her own downfall and the foisting of Trump on the rest of us. (That is not to
suggest that Clinton would serve the American public well.)
There's an old Roman saying -- 'Res ipsa loquitur' -- 'The thing speaks for itself'. Basic
to our tort law; you don't need to prove intent.
For 28 minutes, Comey precisely described the 'thing'. Then, in his last two minutes, he ran
away from the law, and then out of the room as fast as he could go.
Is there a different law for the Clintons than for the rest of us? Yes. From Whitewater until
today, obviously. In the corridors of power, from the leaders of both parties, the fix is in.
As a Democrat, does this mean that I should vote for Trump, and put up with four years of babbling
idiocy, rather than going with Hillary and furthering the assault on our democracy and on our
law?
Maybe.
steveky
So She was not knowingly Criminal.
She only had an unsecured server and put national security at rick so she could have her own Blackberry.....
Or she had the server to circumvent freedom of information act laws, which Comey did not even
address.
This is not over folks....
Stupid or Criminal... If she is to be president I almost hope Criminal....
Curt Chaffee
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey."
The poodle speaks.
Copper65 -> Curt Chaffee
..no reasonable prosecutor who wanted to keep his job (or maybe his life).
dddxxx -> Wolfclan
Winston Churchill once said when criticized, "Any fool can see what is wrong---Can you see
what is right?"
BillFromBoston
I'm sure that many of you Europeans speak Spanish and,therefore,know what "plato o plomo" means.However,I'll
wager that few of you know much about the Mexican drug cartels that literally control Mexico today.And
they control Mexico through "plato o plomo".This utterance is very,*very* effective when directed
at the police,judges,prosecutors and elected officials.
Although it's possible that Mr Comey and/or his subordinates were promised "silver" that seems
unlikely.Much more likely is that they were promised jobs...promotions...lucrative consulting
gigs.Remember,Europe...there are many,many,*many* people who make very,*very* comfortable livings
while connected to folks "inside the Beltway" (meaning Washington).
It's also possible,but highly unlikely,that anyone involved was threatened with "lead".Much
more likely is that threats to careers...threats to reveal the existence of a mistress...and other
less extreme,but *very* persuasive,threats were communicated.
"Plato o plomo"..."I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"...take your pick.
nerospizza -> ID1773222
It means silver or lead- as in you can take a bribe or a bullet..
Arbuzov
I possessed a Top Secret Special Intelligence Compartmented Access security clearance for 34
years before my retirement, and I handled uncountable classified documents in my time. And I can
assure you that 90 percent of them (at a minimum) were either overclassified, or never should
have been classified in the first place.
Joelbanks
She was careless with the fate of Libya and she was careless with national security. Yet,
according to President Obama, it is hard to think of any person better qualified for the presidency
than she.
What is grievously wrong with this picture?
ilipe Barroso -> alan101
Then, explain this rubbish: https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
There was no intent but a lot of recklessness. How different is from this case? I'll help you:
he was a nobody.
makaio -> alan101
Lying - Her ongoing lie about the server's purpose, and her past b.s. about it being approved
and fully above board.
Reckless - See this article, and take into account her support for toppling Muammar Gaddafi,
among others.
Obstinate - Twelve years to admit toppling Saddam Hussein -- with millions suffering as a result
to this very day -- was a bad call. She's still lying about her server a year after its discovery
and, to the detriment of her supporters who always have to avoid this topic, she obviously doesn't
care.
Secretive - Her server was implemented to evade public and official records requests, with
a degree of success.
Warring - Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Honduras leader ousters or attempts, all without follow-on
plans, all increasing suffering and terrorism, all indirectly or directly supported by Hillary.
Her traits are right before us, and they're only "Rubbish!" for those who cower, deny, and
stick their heads in sand.
And they don't bode well for our future.
guicho
So she lied when she said no classified information was sent on the private server, the FBI
just admitted that there was information of the highest security classification on the server.
Whether intentional or not, failing to keep top secret information safe from intrusion and access
to persons without the proper security clearances is a crime. Yet the FBI won't recommend charges.
I can't believe this is going to be swept under the rug and "news" media will continue to champion
Hillary for president. If any of us breached security protocol at work we would be fired, prosecuted
and prevented from finding work in the future. Just another example of how the law discriminates
based on who you are and how much money and influence you have.
bill9651
Emailgate looks like it is just the tip of the iceberg!
Clinton has been outed as a serial lair to the nation:
.
the State Dept contradicts her assertion that she was authorised to use an unguarded private
server. No she was not. She neither had the approval, nor had she even requested it. Pure lies!
Now the FBI contradicts her statements that none of the material she sent was marked as top
secret or as classified.
The FBI found: 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the
time they were sent.
Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained
secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information.
So is the FBI part of the right wing conspiracy? And if so, why no indictments. She broke rules
in order to keep the public from knowing anything about her using her post to boost the corrupt
Clinton Foundation. By doing so, she played fast and loose with govt secrets, even top secrets.
And then she repeatedly lied to the nation about it.
Not my findings, not that of Republicans, but of Democrat appointed FBI directors and State
Dept investigators.
Her corruption is becoming public knowlege at last.
Battlehenkie
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is
that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case"
Because doing so would make for a weak case that a prosecutor is unlikely to win, or because
it would be career suicide for the prosecutor due to upsetting vested interests?
wjpietrzak
Now we'll never know if the contents of the compromised Secret files led to any harm to the
US, its citizens, Servents and allies. No prosecution, no need to reveal the facts.
Sorry but carelessness is when you are distracted like going to take a coffee and forget
to lock the screen. She deliberately setup an email server at home ans she knew that is illegal
and a huge breach of security.
Doug Wenzel
When my dad was a lt. jg on Kwajalein 50+ years ago, he was an entry level Communications Officer.
The whole island was one big Nay base. One day, he got distracted, and forgot to deliver a minor,
routine encrypted message. It was found in his pants at the base laundry.
Needless to say, that was the end of his career in communications. he was reassigned as a radar
operator in the belly of a single-engined SkyRaider like this one, which meant sure drowning if
the plane had to ditch.
When Hillary Clinton opted to have her own server she assumed strict liability for everything
involved with it. Plus she signed an acknowledgement when assuming work at the State Department.
Clearing her is an disgrace, and an insult to those in the intelligence community and with foreign
allies whose lives were put at risk, as well as to all those who have had their careers drawn
and quartered for breaches far less significant than these.
Jack Dornan
Careless = little or no regard to the consequences.
Top Secret = disclosure consequences would be damaging to the nation or place US lives in danger
No prosecution = no unauthorized disclosure occurred
Conclusion = Lucky Lady
stratplaya
No classified info: lie
Allowed by State: lie
Turned over all work emails: lie
Wanted a single device: lie
Never breached: lie
Laws are for the peasants, not our rulers.
Reason336 -> stratplaya
ahhh when has it EVER been different than that in human history???
You expected different now?
Kommentator
On the premise she did nothing wrong (snigger....) she is reckless, careless, a proven lair,
Wall St. bought & paid for, a known warmonger, a recipient of funds from dubious nation states
and apparently a war hero from dodging snipers bullets........and yet......and yet you still she
is the best option, you could not make this up.
Urgelt
This is very disturbing to me.
The FBI doesn't mention the legality, or lack of legality, of Clinton's avoidance of compliance
with federal records statutes and the FOIA. She purged official correspondence from her e-mail
server - a fact turned up by discovery of that correspondence on the senders' servers. Did they
even ask her if her intent was to avoid compliance with federal records statutes and the FOIA?
We can see no evidence that the FBI even brought it up.
So the Obama Administration hands to Clinton a mild spanking on classified document handling,
but ignores the elephant in the room: why she refused to use an official government server for
her official correspondence. If her intent was to avoid compliance with federal statutes, then
she broke the law.
Adrian Newton
Is the FBI also suggesting that she is suffering from Affluenza, you know when rich people
think they are above the law.
God bless exceptional America. Lady Justice will not be back anytime soon.
callingallcars
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes … our judgment is that
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," said Comey.
Evidence of potential violations of criminal statutes is typically called "probable cause"
that would get every American in the country other than its elite and untouchable political classes
indicted and brought to trial. Or at least all of the black ones, i.e., the superpredators that
must be brought to heel.
"... Surely, The State Department had an enterprise-grade email solution in place in 2013. We can only hope that Clinton protected her personal accounts with something more sophisticated than "Chelsea1980". ..."
"... 52% of IT executives said they don't have processes in place to manage outside sources, such as Dropbox in Vision Solutions' 2015 State of Resilience Report . Meanwhile, 70% of employees that use Dropbox do so solely for work, according to a 2013 Forrester report, and shadow IT appeared as a concern for the first time in the 2015 SIM IT Trends Study . ..."
"... Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be." ..."
"... What kind of security risks does shadow IT create for your organisation? What happens when an employee uses the same password for both personal and enterprise accounts and hackers target that person's personal account? ..."
"... Their low-security Google Drive password just created a big headache for your organisation. ..."
"... Sourced from Bob Dvorak, founder and president, ..."
Consumer-grade and insecure applications can make headlines – and not in a good way
...This revelation should have public and private sector IT pros questioning their policies and practice
around shadow IT – those programs outside of the formal control of the information technology department.
The Times wrote: "Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National
Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach."
Surely, The State Department had an enterprise-grade email solution in place in 2013. We can
only hope that Clinton protected her personal accounts with something more sophisticated than "Chelsea1980".
IT has an important job, and keeping tabs on the personal email accounts of executives or high-ranking
officials should be the least of their worries. However, with 783 reported data breaches in 2014,
according to
The Identity Theft Resources Center, shadow IT is a strategic IT issue that is too important
to ignore.
The topic raises an important issue around policy and practice of shadow IT, individual or departmental
use of consumer-grade applications, such as personal email accounts, and cloud storage, departmental
(or individual) SaaS accounts, even employee social media activity. All fall within this category
in an age where the lines between work life and personal life are increasingly blurred.
While there may be individual, departmental or even organisational benefits to some elements of
shadow IT, there are both operational and security risks associated with it and professionals' use
of consumer grade tools for email, cloud storage and other services. CIOs and IT leaders need to
be vigilant in developing, instituting and enforcing corporate IT governance policies and procedures.
52% of IT executives said they don't have processes in place to manage outside sources, such
as Dropbox in Vision Solutions'
2015 State of Resilience Report. Meanwhile, 70% of employees that use Dropbox do so
solely for work, according to a 2013
Forresterreport, and shadow IT appeared as a concern for the first time in the
2015 SIM IT Trends Study.
...Gartner reported in its 2015
CIO Agenda that shadow IT consumes as much as 20% of a company's IT resources and, for
the first time, respondents to the SIM IT Trends Study included shadow IT among their list of management
concerns.
So what happens when Dropbox experiences
downtime, as it did in January of last year? How do businesses react? What happens to
the customer data, financial data or important documents they stored there?
When nearly two-thirds of organisations using the cloud reported not having HA or DR solutions
for their enterprise applications, according to Vision Solutions, you can imagine how low the number
must be for companies actively able to recover from, or are even monitoring, employee activity in
the cloud.
The small matter of security
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said in 2012, "There are only two types of companies: those
that have been hacked and those that will be."
What kind of security risks does shadow IT create for your organisation? What happens when an
employee uses the same password for both personal and enterprise accounts and hackers target that
person's personal account?
Their low-security Google Drive password just created a big headache for your organisation.
You may not face a public records request that brings the specter of shadow IT in your organisation
to light, but publicly traded corporations have internal control requirements to consider and private
companies are notoriously protective of their intellectual property and confidential information.
All it takes is one instance and your company can be front-page news – and not in a good way.
Sourced from Bob Dvorak, founder and president, KillerIT
"... Now let's strip away all the politics, sniping and legality over Clinton's email practices. What you have is shadow IT for official business and a State Department without the IT clout to stop it. You could argue with all the NSA snooping that Clinton's own email infrastructure was warranted. ..."
"... Security issues often are tossed aside for convenience. For Clinton it was a homemade email server. For the rest of us it's a personal cloud storage account. ..."
"... In the end, the Clinton email flap will play out for months. There will be hearings and non-stop election coverage about it. Just keep in mind what you're witnessing is shadow IT at a grand scale ..."
Hillary Rodham Clinton is in
one big email mess, but if you zoom out and look at her as any other employee you have a leading
example of shadow IT at play.
Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly ran her own email server out of her house and now is in the middle
of political firestorm. For our purposes, Clinton has provided us with the most high-profile case
of shadow IT practices. And the first lesson of shadow IT is that the techies aren't going to push
around the top execs. For the folks in business tech, the concept of shadow IT isn't exactly new.
You're the CIO. Your other C-level peers have had their own cloud services provisioned for years.
Developers have Amazon's cloud on a corporate Amex. It started with an innocuous printer under a
desk. Then went to a server. Then smartphones to cloud services. People bring their own devices,
apps and business practices with them to work.
Hell, the poor CIO is just finding out about some of these things.
Enter Clinton.
According to the Associated Press, Clinton ran her own email as a Cabinet-level official. Enter
records laws and all sorts of concerns. On the bright side, Clinton at least wasn't using a public
email server. She at least earns some techie props for that.
Now let's strip away all the politics, sniping and legality over Clinton's email practices.
What you have is shadow IT for official business and a State Department
without the IT clout to stop it. You could argue with all the NSA snooping that Clinton's own
email infrastructure was warranted.
Boil this down to Clinton as an employee and you have the following.
Clinton was a top exec and those folks often get to push IT around. How do you think the iPad
and iPhone became an enterprise juggernaut? You guessed it. The CEO wanted one.
The email infrastructure Clinton ran was techie, but how many of you are conducting work on
personal accounts? Thought so. You may not have federal records laws, but you're ignoring IT policies
almost daily.
Security issues often are tossed aside for convenience. For Clinton it was a homemade
email server. For the rest of us it's a personal cloud storage account.
In the end, the Clinton email flap will play out for months. There will be hearings and non-stop
election coverage about it. Just keep in mind what you're witnessing is shadow IT at a grand scale
According to the Washington Post, the worst scenario may have come true when hacker
"Guccifer" reportedly released several emails pertaining to Benghazi, which appear to be
between Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton at the "clintonemail.com" domain. The domain was
registered January 2009 through Network Solutions.
Looking a bit deeper at the MX records for the domain they map to a service run by McAfee:
MX Logic was acquired by McAfee in June of 2009 and is now part of McAfee's SaaS offerings.
So, it looks like someone knew what they were doing at some level to modify the MX records to use
McAfee's service.
However, the risk of this email account being compromised is significant and one wonders who
else aside from Guccifer may have had access to sensitive communications.
Before we pick on Hillary Clinton too much, we should evaluate how common this practice is. If
the goal is to circumvent a regulatory requirement and is putting communications at risk, these
shadow IT practices should be evaluated government-wide.
tonyE
This is a security breakdown at a very high level.
From personal experience I can tell you that any emails that are classified MUST be routed via
very specific networks.
For the SecState to use a private network is a breakdown of security at the HIGHEST LEVEL.
She is guilty of a very serious crime, there is simply no way for her to excuse herself.
Also, how about all the people who were communicating with her? Surely they knew they were
breaking the law... ( and I'm not talking about the records, I'm talking about a
security breach at the highest level of our nation).
"... "The reality is that every organization has a BYOD program - whether they think they do or not," Stevens said. "Now's the time to shore up the systems and enable mobility without sacrificing security." ..."
"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at
an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government
business," former NARA Director of Litigation Jason Baron told the Times.
While pundits and politicians are debating the ethics and legality of this, it also raises questions
about the security of Clinton's communications.
"This news is yet another example of the lines blurring between work and personal lives and should
serve as a wake-up call to federal IT departments," said Bob Stevens, vice president of federal systems
at Lookout. "This trend towards mobility has clear benefits but it also adds a nuanced layer to not
just email security, but all security."
Stevens noted that mobile devices, by their nature, move about and touch multiple networks as
they do so. Since some networks are less secure than others, it becomes even more important to use
secure programs and services to communicate.
"The reality is that every organization has a BYOD program - whether they think they do or not,"
Stevens said. "Now's the time to shore up the systems and enable mobility without sacrificing security."
Subsequent reports revealed that Clinton maintained her own server, but whether that server was
more or less secure than commercial or federal email offerings is still unknown.
"... In fact, according to the survey respondents, the average company already uses 20+ SaaS applications - think about it: Asana, Dropbox, Skype, Basecamp, Apple iCloud, Gmail, LastPass, not to mention your Facebooks and Twitters. But of those 20 or so SaaS platforms, more than 7 are non-approved. So, "…upwards of 35 percent of all SaaS apps in your company are purchased and used without oversight." ..."
"... Instead of losing sleep over perceived risk, companies must develop clear and concise policies governing cloud computing and SaaS usage. And don't stone me for saying it, but IT departments shouldn't exclusively own this exercise. Today, most executive level employees are well versed in SaaS, and they are probably well aware of what systems and platforms their teams are using day to day. ..."
They say any press is good press, and
the ruling is still out as to whether or not Hillary Clinton knowingly broke any laws when she
used a private, home based email account for official State business as Secretary of State. She
admitted on Tuesday that she had made a mistake and should've created two email accounts: a government
one and a personal one. Still, one thing is clear: When the story broke last week, the entire world
was talking about the latest threat to corporate security: shadow IT.
For those of you heavily
immersed in the tech side of running a business, this won't be news to you. But for many business
executives and CEOs the idea of classified information being run through outside servers or software
can be chilling.
Basically, Shadow IT, also known as Stealth IT, describes solutions and SaaS, specified and deployed
by departments other than the organizations own IT department.
As far back as 2012, IT research and advisory company Gartner
was predicting that 35 percent of enterprise
IT expenditures for most organizations would be managed outside the IT department's budget by 2015.
Surely today, based on the innovations in technology which have occurred in 2012, that number's even
higher.
And if you think the blame lies with those hipster millennials and their "always on" lifestyle,
you would be wrong.
The Enemy Is Us
According to a 2014 study by Stratecast and Frost & Sullivan and based on input from organizations
in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, the biggest users of Shadow IT services
are IT executives and employees.
Now extrapolate that fact across your organization, to other executives, managers, and employees,
and you can see just how quickly those numbers begin to add up.
In fact, according to the survey respondents, the average company already uses 20+ SaaS applications
- think about it: Asana, Dropbox, Skype, Basecamp, Apple iCloud, Gmail, LastPass, not to mention
your Facebooks and Twitters. But of those 20 or so SaaS platforms, more than 7 are non-approved.
So, "…upwards of 35 percent of all SaaS apps in your company are purchased and used without oversight."
So, if you can't blame the millennials, who or what can you blame?
You can blame technology.
Get Off'a My Cloud
More to the point, you can blame the rise of cloud computing. As with most things in life, that
which can benefit us the most, can also harm us.
With more and more companies adopting BYOD policies (often also referred to as BYOC, or cloud),
it's no surprise that Shadow IT isn't really in the shadows anymore. Which probably isn't news to
any of you.
In fact, as the study discovered, Shadow IT is now being perceived as an important step in innovation,
opening new channels of development for businesses, and reducing overall costs.
Here's why:
Ease of access – Users can access SaaS apps via the Internet, using and from any Internet-accessible
device. In most cases, little or no client-side software is required, which means that the SaaS
solution leaves no "footprint" on company-owned devices.
Ease of maintenance – SaaS apps are maintained by the provider. Users have no responsibility
for patches or updates.
Free or low cost – Many software providers offer a limited functionality or limited capacity
version of their applications at no cost. And if subscriber based, most can often be terminated
at any time, with no strings attached.
Quick deployment – SaaS is available on demand, with a click of the "accept" button on the
Terms and Conditions page. Users do not have to wait weeks or months for server provisioning and
application deployment (assuming the request is approved).
Of course, these are in addition to the direct benefits to a corporate IT department: No monies
paid out in development costs, maintenance, testing, upgrades capacity planning, or performance management.
Plus, backup and recovery of data and infrastructure is generally also the responsibility of the
platform's vendor.
Manage Your Risk
So, where does that leave us? With remote working, job sharing, file sharing, and BYOD policies
becoming commonplace, along with the rise of mobile and the ever evolving technological advances
happening around us daily, it's a little too late to shut that barn door.
And, contrary to how nefarious the term Shadow IT "feels," it appears most employees who "go rogue"
and use unapproved SaaS during work hours are doing so with the best of intentions: They simply want
to do their jobs, as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. What's not to like about that?
They're not doing it just because, either. These are generally speaking a smart group of people
who want to get things done. They cite reasons like quickly gaining access to the right tools, overall
comfort level with certain apps and platforms, and, perhaps most importantly, the desire to avoid
a steep learning curve and the waste of time conquering such a learning curve entails if forced to
adopt something new.
I think the responsibility today in handling cloud computing and unregulated corporate SaaS usage
lies squarely with each organization. As we need to look inward to see who's really performing this
Shadow IT (our own executive, managers, and IT people), we also need to look inward when it comes
to corporate policies and guidelines. Because most companies today don't have any.
Instead of losing sleep over perceived risk, companies must develop clear and concise policies
governing cloud computing and SaaS usage. And don't stone me for saying it, but IT departments shouldn't
exclusively own this exercise. Today, most executive level employees are well versed in SaaS, and
they are probably well aware of what systems and platforms their teams are using day to day.
The ideal approach to Shadow IT is to collaborate. We've got to break down silos between IT and
the rest of the organization, and involve all areas of your organization to work together to create
best practices and help put the right policies in place to minimize corporate risk. Think outside
the box. Remain flexible. Be prepared to drop old-school "firewall" thinking. And remember, the end-goal
really is to improve business outputs and add to the bottom line of the organization.
Was Clinton breaking the law with her Shadow IT efforts? I don't know. The State Department's
email system is known to be vulnerable to hackers. But what I do know is she was leaps and bounds
ahead of Romney and Palin, who conducted official business on free email services from Microsoft
Corp. and Yahoo Inc.
Sometimes, perspective really is everything.
What do you think? Are you aware of any Shadow IT occurring in your organization? What do you
think would be the most important things to include in policies and guidelines supporting SaaS usage?
I would love to know your thoughts in the comment section.
This post was written as part of the Dell Insight Partners program, which provides news and analysis
about the evolving world of tech. For more on these topics, visit Dell's thought leadership site
PowerMore. Dell sponsored this article, but the opinions are my own and
don't necessarily represent Dell's positions or strategies.
"... Again, the point here is not that Clinton should have ditched the secure, government system in order to use her phone of choice. In her circumstances, the security concerns should have outweighed her personal comfort. But for many, the desire to stick with tech that they know and love is often counter to logic, efficiency, security and policy. And most of us work in environments where bucking the system isn't quite as dire as it could be for the nation's top diplomat. ..."
"... " Shadow IT " is technology that users install without company approval because they prefer it to what's offered. What I know is that I can't secure my network if it's packed with technology that my users hate. ..."
...Judicial Watch, a conservative foundation
looking for evidence that Clinton broke laws in her handling of the email, received some fascinating
information in response to a recent FOIA request.
Upon joining the State Department in early 2009, Clinton immediately requested a
Blackberry smartphone. Having used one extensively during her 2008 Presidential campaign, she,
like almost every attorney in that decade, had fallen in love with her Blackberry, hence the request.
After all, Condoleezza Rice,
her predecessor as Secretary of State, had used one. President Obama had
a special secure one that the NSA had developed for him. But they said no. Even after being called
to a high level meeting with Clinton's top aide and five State Department officials, they still said
no.The NSA offered Clinton
an alternative. But it was based on Windows CE, a dramatically different, less intuitive smartphone
operating system. A month later, Clinton started using her own server. Judicial Watch claims that
this info proves that Clinton knew that her email was not secure, but I think that she has already
admitted that. But it also reveals something much more telling.
As a three plus decade technology Director/CIO (working primarily with Attorneys), I can tell
you that people get attached to specific types of technology. I know a few Attorneys who still swear
to this day that
Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS was the best word processing software ever released. And there are millions
who will tell you that their Blackberry was their virtual right arm in the 2000's.
How devoted are people to their favorite applications and devices? I worked for a VP who was only
comfortable using Word, so when she did her quarterly reports to the board, she had her assistant
export huge amounts of information from our case management system. Then she modified all of it in
Word. Once delivered, she had her assistant manually update the case management system in order to
incorporate her changes. Efficient? Not at all. But she loved herself some Word. I've seen staff
using seven year old laptops because they know them and don't want to have to learn and set up a
new one. And it wasn't until the bitter end of 2014 that both my boss and my wife finally gave in
and traded up their Blackberries for iPhones.
Again, the point here is not that Clinton should have ditched the secure, government system in
order to use her phone of choice. In her circumstances, the security concerns should have outweighed
her personal comfort. But for many, the desire to stick with tech that they know and love is often
counter to logic, efficiency, security and policy. And most of us work in environments where bucking
the system isn't quite as dire as it could be for the nation's top diplomat.
"Shadow IT" is technology
that users install without company approval because they prefer it to what's offered. What I know
is that I can't secure my network if it's packed with technology that my users hate. Smart people
will bypass that security in order to use the tools that work for them. An approach to security that
neglects usability and user preference is likely to fail. In most cases, there are compromises that
can be made between IT and users that allow secure products to be willingly adopted. In other cases,
with proper training, hand-holding, and executive sponsorship, you can win users over. But
when we are talking about Blackberries in the last decade, or the iPhone in this one, we have to
acknowledge that the popularity of the product is a serious factor in adoption that technologists
can't ignore. And if you don't believe me, just ask Hillary Clinton.
"... Hillary Clinton has quickly become the public face of so-called "shadow IT" practices, which already affects almost every organization ..."
"... In other words, shadow IT is the unapproved, unmanaged solution that frustrated employees (and government officials) turn to when official systems don't meet their needs. In Chua's view, it's simply a good idea to take this bull by the horns, identify the pain points people are trying to avoid, and meet those needs through official channels instead. ..."
"... "Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," ..."
"... In other words, a light touch might do wonders to tame the shadow IT beast even where strict policy edicts fail. And this lesson needs to be absorbed by a very large audience. ..."
... there's also a big upside to Clinton's home-brew email solution getting national attention.
Hillary Clinton has quickly become the public face of so-called "shadow IT" practices, which
already affects almost every organization -- from small and medium businesses to enterprise-class
giants, and onward to the government behemoth. It's high time investors and business managers take
a closer look at this trend, so let's thank her for opening the debate.
... ... ...
"I think we're at a point in time where companies can no longer ignore shadow IT," Chua said.
"They need to put official policies in place, start talking to employees about what they need, make
sure that these needs are aligned with the business.
"If they don't, then people can start creating their own solutions and create this whole shadow
IT problem."
In other words, shadow IT is the unapproved, unmanaged solution that frustrated employees
(and government officials) turn to when official systems don't meet their needs. In Chua's view,
it's simply a good idea to take this bull by the horns, identify the pain points people are trying
to avoid, and meet those needs through official channels instead.
"This is definitely an opportunity to sit up and take action," Chua explained. "The IT industry
is moving away from cookie-cutter solutions with help desk tickets and red tape around everything.
This debate gives IT departments a chance to say, 'Hey, different business units have different needs.
I'm going to create a baseline framework, but I'll be agile and respond to the various needs of different
units.'"
Chua's comments underscore a growing sentiment among IT industry professionals. Talking to the
CIOmagazine this week, Deputy Chief Technology Officer Steve Riley of data networking
specialist Riverbed Technology (NASDAQ:RVBD)
expanded on the problem. "Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll
just go farther underground," Riley said. "There's no positive outcome for being a disciplinarian
about something like this. You might end up with services that are even more dangerous, where people
now actively seek to circumvent policies."
How the solutions fit the problem
In other words, a light touch might do wonders to tame the shadow IT beast even where strict
policy edicts fail. And this lesson needs to be absorbed by a very large audience.
According to Softchoice's data collection, over 80% of organizations -- businesses, corporations,
churches, you name it -- already see some members stepping outside the formal IT structure to enjoy
the convenience of cloud-based public services.
Google (NASDAQ:GOOG)
(NASDAQ:GOOGL)
is a popular provider with tools including Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Calendar. Microsoft
(NASDAQ:MSFT) might
lose some software license sales to other cloud providers, but its Windows Azure and SkyDrive services
are also leaders in their own right.
Sure, some of these service choices already have the official support of the IT department. But
one-third of all users in a large Softchoice audit program recently reported employing tools such
as SkyDrive or Google Calendar at work -- without so much as notifying the IT department.
The shadow IT market seems to open up a very large business opportunity for software-as-a-service
providers such as Google and Microsoft. Managing these tools in a properly approved and budgeted
fashion will help in closing boatloads of security and transparency concerns. And that way, they
could soak up the demand for unofficial email servers and unapproved data warehouses running in some
random employee's garage, beyond the reach of corporate firewalls.
Final words
A flexible approach to systems management can help businesses and government agencies make the
most of their resources. There will always be rogue systems and maverick users, but acknowledging
this reality can help contain the problem -- and maybe turn it into a strength instead.
Sweeping shadow IT under the rug, on the other hand, only opens up the door to more security leaks
and the next Clinton-style transparency scandal.
"... Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate. ..."
"... "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010. ..."
"... Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches." ..."
"... After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem. ..."
"... As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer." ..."
Hillary Clinton's private server was temporarily unprotected by security features in December
2010, when the then-secretary of state had technical problems with her email. In 2011, Clinton's
server was hacked multiple times, newly-disclosed papers show.
On Wednesday, the legal advocacy group Judicial Watch published a batch of back-and-forth emails
between high-level State Department technical support and Clinton staffers as they tried to fix a
serious problem with the secretary's private home email server.
"There are many messages and responses not received," one of the officials, Cindy Almodovar,
wrote to S/ES-IRM staff, delivering Huma's complaint.
Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed
that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released
emails indicate.
"We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the
department so you are not going to spam," Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.
In response, the secretary wrote: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk
of the personal being accessible."
Another email shows that John Bentel, then the technical support director, warned Clinton
that if she opted to use the official email box, "any email would go through the Department's
infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches."
After Abedin reported the technical problem, the State Department technical staff suggested
that "turning off the anti-spam filter" would resolve the problem.
However, after the Trend Micro Inc. security software installed on Clinton's server was turned
off, a senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote: "We view this as a Band-Aid
and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective. We are eager for TrendMicro to fully resolve,
quickly."
A screenshot of TrendMicro's 'ScanMail for Exchange' in one of the emails showed the anti-spam
disabled.
As shutting down the security software didn't appear to be helpful, one email recommended
turning off two of the three anti-phishing filters that protect personal data from identity
thieves and cybercriminals "in order to eliminate the categorizer."
However, in his response, Lawrence did not support the idea, saying that both "content-filtering
and anti-virus checking… has blocked malicious content in the recent past."
Another set of emails from January 2011, just mere weeks after attempts to fix Clinton's email
server, reveal that someone tried to compromise it.
"Someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have
the chance to," the non-departmental advisor to President Bill Clinton, who provided technical
support, told the State Department's deputy chief of staff for operations on January 9, 2011.
"We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min," he wrote later that day.
The next day, Abedin instructed Clinton's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff for planning
not to email the secretary "anything sensitive" and stated that she could "explain more in
person."
Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly denied that her
private email server was ever breached.
In late May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a scathing report
largely concerning Clinton's email use, saying that unsecured communications at such a high level
created "significant security risks."
This most recent release of Clinton-linked records by Judicial Watch referred to that report. The
group requested the emails and was granted the right to obtain the records under a June 14, 2016
court order by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Clinton's use of a private email server has been a major headache for her presidential campaign.
"... the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received, and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed" in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic hostility to FOIA requests). ..."
"... Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides? Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the emails likely having timestamps from a common clock? ..."
"... Assuming the ISP has decent security.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmDBo-00mY ..."
"... That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard that tears were rolling down my cheeks. ..."
"... So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security! ..."
"... if I was an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around. ..."
"... Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job? ..."
"... 24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. ..."
"... he is not an engineer. Just a Manager that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links. ..."
"... The AP and Wired news stories about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this stuff up. ..."
"... Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.) ..."
"... like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS. ..."
"... Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s) to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs? ..."
"... Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs. archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense? ..."
"... My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both? ..."
"... I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information. ..."
"... She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian… ..."
It has, I think, been shown by Venafi that there was for some time in 2012 and 2013 a VPN running
on the clintonemail.com domain. However, that certificate expired. Running a directly Internet
connected printer seems more a security threat than simply a chance of sniffing printer queues
as modern printers sometimes have their own vulnerabilities.
Venafi's posts (first story has information about VPN):
I don't see why she requires a publicly routable IP address for a mail server, print server
and VPN server. It can easily be NATed behind a router on a single public IP.
On a show last week, Rachel Maddow did a segment on the Department of State's official archive
policy.
According to Maddow, the DoS requires workers to print out each email sent or received,
and file it in a box, which is preserved. In general, these printouts, when done at all, are "filed"
in printout order, making them difficult to search (which may be the intent, given the historic
hostility to FOIA requests).
This reminded me that the DoS was dismayed at not finding Brian Pagliano's .pst file, indicating
they did not expect to find his emails on any server-side backup. Presumably, no server-side DoS
email backup capability exists.
Also, wasn't mail.presidentclinton.com used for the emails of the Clinton Foundation aides?
Doesn't this mean the FBI likely now has very precise timing of both Hillary's SoS travel communications
and Bill Clinton's speaking fee arrangement and Clinton Foundation donation emails, due to the
emails likely having timestamps from a common clock?
Well, there are many printers have more than one port and protocols in use which means many different
ways of establishing a connection to that printer and not just layer 2.
Loved all the arguments, but, show me in the laws where it was illegal, for Hillery, to have
a second E-mail address? And that it was illegal to use it on government time. Or to have a printer
hooked to that account? But, I will tell you what was illegal. The employees using that address
to send classified information too. You shouldn't worry about Hillery, but the useful idiots.
There are some registrars that setup DNS by way of a template and assign A record subdomains
by default to make it easier….such as MX, www, etc. Not excusing it as you need to be way more
careful when you are the state department…but this is hardly the worst thing Clinton has done.
I'm not surprised since people don't realize how much of a security risk a printer can be -
and how to protect themselves and their network. Great white paper about printer and network security
written by a third party here: bit.ly/1sq1kyG
I also just read a story about printers and security on Computerworld.
The printer queue to a pimple faced hacker wouldn't be of interest but for a state intelligence
agency it would be a jackpot. Some of the greatest intelligence is gathered from the trash still
today. Don't think that the printer queue would not be interesting to a knowledgeable party.
So… You want me to believe that Hillary's personal email server sat behind MILLIONS of dollars
of security infrastructure to keep it protected? And that it employed D.O.D. grade 2 factor authentication,
disk encryption, and had a team of the worlds best security professionals monitoring all traffic
to/from the server and the network itself?
Secure, nonsecure, whatever. If she had used State's email server, then 1) copies would have
been on their server when she left office, 2) the Benghazi Commitee would have been able to wrap
up its investigation 2 years ago, 3) if State's computers were hacked, that wouldn't be her responsibility,
and 4) due to her choices, she's on the hot seat insisting she didn't do anything wrong. She made
her bed and now has to sleep in it.
The C-SPAN interview with former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova
I linked to above was a real eye opener for me to how HUGE this scandal actually is.
Once one is aware of the details, one can easily see through all of the many intentional red
herrings and half truths thrown out on this by Clinton and her campaign. What is absolutely, positively
amazing to me is how they have been able to get away with it since it really doesn't take much
investigative effort at all to expose their spin job for what it is.
Some of the lame excuses now coming from the State Department are a hint that officials there
are also vulnerable to the very major repercussions that SHOULD come from this.
Every one of the 127 to 150 (depending upon who you listen to) FBI agents investigating this
and every person in the intel community knows darn well that if any one of them had done even
the tiniest fraction of what has been done by Clinton and her crew, their security clearance would
have been immediately revoked, they would have been indicted and, most likely, imprisoned.
That is why, as revealed in the C-SPAN interview with Joseph diGenova who has a current Top
Secret clearance himself and has his ear to the conversation within the retired DOJ and intel
community in DC, there would likely be a revolt within the FBI and intel community if there are
no indictments on this. Why?
Well, first, there is that "Think of what would have happened to ME if I'd done even a tiny
fraction of this." Second, the failure to indict and prosecute would set a dangerous precedent
that would make the successful prosecution of anyone guilty of the mishandling of classified materials
and avoidance of public record FOIA inquiries difficult if not impossible.
@notme and other defending Hillary Fanbois: There is tons of evidence it was not way more secure
than a DOD platform and she didn't use a qualified individual to set up the email server.
It was an out of the box config with little or no effort to obfuscate the domain / service.
I highly doubt the server or IIS had been harden and I'd have to profile it was out of ignorance.
No doubt all default vulnerabilities where unaddressed and patches weren't in effect if a reboot
was necessary
How do we know this??? Just a little recon. As you know whatever you post may never go away…
Same goes for domains. Enter one of my favorite Internet recon tools The Way Back Machine. If
you don't know it, search for it and do a little research.
When the default IIS page comes up for the mail domain and the auth login page shows up for
at the default OWA address, we can comfortably conclude this was a lame chatty effort. At least
ssl was being used (by default no doubt): https://mail.clintonemail.com/owa/auth/logon.aspx
Had someone intended to provide a layer of security by hiding her email, it never EVER would've
been via that silly domain. An obfuscated domain would've been irrelevant and distasteful i.e.
openmalwarehere.com
That is a GREAT Youtube video. I've only gotten through the first 10 and a half minutes
of it so far, and I had to stop watching it for a bit, because I was laughing my ass off so hard
that tears were rolling down my cheeks.
Looking forward to the additional amazing absurdities revealed in the NEXT 40 minutes of this
video.
Could also DNS poison. They are not connecting to the printer via IP probably if they are setting
up A records for it. Also don't underestimate how many routers on the web are hacked, and I am
talking up stream core routers.
But why are we even talking about eavesdropping a connection? You can usually trivially compromise
a printer (likely default admin creds) and just capture each print job that is sent to the printer
using the printer itself. Copy each job onto the filesystem memory on the device and FTP it out.
Most all HP and other network capable printers support it or just upload your own firmware.
So let me get this straight, she COULD have been sending stuff involved with Black ops
over an unencrypted link, and POTENTIALLY those files could have been printed off ANYWHERE in
the world, and people are STILL defending her actions! Did it happen – IRRELEVANT! The very notion
that she made it POSSIBLE means she breached national security!
Would anyone else who did this be allowed in public yet alone to run for POTUS!?
The intercepting of data is also somewhat unlikely. Without knowing how they got internet access
you can't say infallibly if it was sniffable. Over a fiber circuit she likely had a CIDR block
and there wouldn't have been anyone else to sniff it. Over DOCSIS they would need to break BPI+,
and be on the local RF segment. Both create extraordinarily unlikely scenarios for sniffing.
Also you sent me on a confusing wild IP goose chase… You have both 24.187.234.188 and 24.197.234.188
listed in the story.
"In one demonstration, Cui printed a tax return on an infected printer, which in turn sent
the tax form to a second computer playing the part of a hacker's machine. The latter computer
then scanned the document for critical information such as Social Security numbers, and when it
found one, automatically published it on a Twitter feed…"
So, um, leaving aside the narrow possibility of printer traffic sniffing, I believe that it
might be accurate to say that most printers these days have memory… lots of it… and thus, it would
seem to be not entirely beyond the realm of the possible to imagine a scenario in which a less-than-perfectly-secured
printer which happened to also have a PUBLIC internet address, might perhaps be induced to give
up its secrets to some remote attacker, e.g. the last five or ten documents that were printed.
The media and the Republicats are all gaga about the security of THE SERVER, but if I was
an attacker, with or without the backing of a foreign government, I'd have been poking at THE
PRINTER in the first instance, because (a) its security is likely to be weaker and also (b) its
entirely less likely that there would be any logs produced or kept of my poking around.
Now you're saying that not only was a printer available on this subdomain, and there was
no firewall and no encrypted transport, but it was actually one of a particular series of HP LaserJet
printers that allowed for a firmware upgrade upon receiving a new print job?
After a few ifs, I agree this could look bad. But, Ron, you're piling on the if after if after
if and stating factually that this was bad. Again, what we have is a subdomain with printer as
the name. There's a ton of things in between that what you're trying to have poor Brian conclude.
Directly connecting a computer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, bad idea.
Directly connecting a printer to the internet without any firewall or hardening, yes, this too
is a bad idea. Too bad we're playing hopscotch because of a subdomain name. Not like this:
http://210.125.31.xxx/hp/device/this.LCDispatcher?nav=hp.EventLog
This brings up another interesting thing I just learned about the clintonemail.com domain.
The FSI passive DNS data bases knows of about 10,000 subdomains of that domain. I was flaberghasted
by this at first, but then I realised the real reason for this. (No, that domain DOES NOT actually
have anywhere near that many REAL subdomains):
The simple answer is that NetworkSolutions points your parked domains at their advertising.
(That's not actually remarkable at all. That's just what pretty much every company that does domain
parking does.)
The more interesting thing is that in the cases of your live/active/non-parked domains for
which NetSol provides DNS, they wildcard these domains, so that any time anybody punches in a
misspelled subdomain name, they end up at NetSol's advertising partner, DoubleClick.
This is arguably an underhanded thing for NetSol to be doing, but hey! It's (apparently) in
the contract, so it _is_ explicit to the customer, and NetSol isn't in business for its health.
It's a commecial enterprise, so they can't be blamed for trying to make a buck, here and there.
But all this info about the DNS really brings up some other issues. Let's say, just for the
sake of argument, that Hillary's server was, in actual fact, as tight as a snare drum with respect
to security. There's still the question of her login credentials for her NetSol account. If those
had gone walkaround… well… you can imagine the scenarios.
The Wayback links I provided are NOT for subdomains or parked domains. They are for the clintonemail.com
domain, for the time period in question that a breach may have occurred. The URL strings captured
show (at least) questionable adware running on this box, and I'm really surprised no one is looking
at that. The &poru= string is tied to some very dubious adware, for example.
So no evidence except wild speculation based on a sub domain name? I used to have a few sub
domains such as router.mydomain voip.mydomain admin.mydomain netgear.mydomain setup as a honeypots.
My plan was to script any ips buzzing them had all their future traffic dropped for several days.
But alas I never got around to completing it.
Gosh! I had no idea, up until this moment, that Hillary was so sophisticated that she was even
running her own honeypots!
Returning to this planet for the moment, I'd just like to emphasize that, as I told Brian,
there are really two core points here:
1) Assigning a *public* IPv4 address to a printer opened up at least the theoretical possibilities
that either (a) printer traffic could be sniffed or (b) that the printer itself could be compromised.
We can debate all day the actual pragmatic level of risk associated with each of these two possibilities,
but I think that it is non-zero in both cases, and in any case, perhaps this all misses the point.
2) Perhaps even MORE importantly, the assignment of a static public IP address to the printer
speaks to the general level of network security competence (or lack thereof) of whoever was setting
up and maintaining this equipment for the Clintons. And what it says is not good at all. I don't
think that many either would or could disagree with that. And this is the more troubling aspect
of the whole story. If the Clinton's sysadmin messed up even this simple and obvious thing, then
what ELSE did he or she mess up, security-wise?
"Putting anything on the internet opens up the theoretical possibility that's its traffic could
be sniffed. So, unless that's the threshold, in which case she's as secure as anything else on
the internet, what's the point of the outrage?"
Actually, yea, you've made a good point. But let's dissect it a bit.
In theory, at least, server-to-server e-mail transmission can be protected from prying eyes
via TLS encryption. I personally don't know how well deployed that (TLS) is at the present moment,
but let's just say for the sake of argument that it's 50/50, i.e. half the time Hillary's inbound
and outbound messages, e.g. to various world potentates, were protected in transit from sniffing
and/or MITM attacks, and the other times they weren't.
More to the point, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that she at least understood the
possibilities of her e-mails being spied upon… which, in the post-Snowden era, at least, she certainly
should have understood… and as a result, she was at least smart enough not to send out e-mails
like "Yea, let's drop those bombs now Bibi!" as some clever wag here said.
Contrast this with her probable level of caution when it came to simply *printing* some draft
document… which could be equally or perhaps even more revealing and/or inflamatory… to the printer
sitting right there next to her desk in her home office.
(As someone suggested, it is at least theoretically possible that data transport to the printer
might be encrypted, but in practice, probably not.)
So Hillary is sitting there, and she prints a draft of a document she's working on called "State
Department Post-Invasion Plan for Crimea". She doesn't worry about the security implications of
"sending" that document out over the Internet, because, as far as she knows, it is actually just
going from the screen on the physical desk right in front of her just over to the printer which
is sitting right at her elbow. As far as her (possibly technically naive) perceptions go, the
document is just being printed, and isn't ever even leaving the room she is sitting in. So her
_perception_ is that printing the document is utterly safe and secure.
But this is the whole point here. Maybe that document could be sniffed. Even if that's not
a realistic possibility, the printer itself could be directly compromised, and made to give up
its secrets.
The apparent high probability that (a) she had a home printer and that (b) this printer had
a public Ipv4 address… which was ridiculously easy to find, by the way… and that (c) she probably
was NOT just using that printer as a paperweight or a doorstop and (d) the undeniable possibility
that said printer could perhaps have been "hacked"… perhaps even via something as simple as remote
login using admin/admin… all adds up to what, in my book at least, seems to be a "Holy s**t!"
type of scenario.
The fact that the FBI apparently didn't bother to impound her printer when it impounded the
rest of her gear is perhaps even more troubling.
For all we know, as we speak, that printer may be sitting exposed in some landfill somewhere
in the hills of Westchester County, just waiting for some dumpster diver with an eye for valuable
e-waste to come along, fish it out, plug it in, login with admin/admin, and then print out copies
of the last 20 documents.
I think that it is safe to say that such a scenario probably would not be fully conformant
with State Department rules & regulations with respect to the security of electronic documents.
Subdomain names mean little to nothing. Someone could guess what an IP address served based
upon the subdomain name, or the domain name itself, but that is silly.
What exactly is an "internet based printer"? I'm not sure if there's a technical person trying
to sound not technical and using random jargon or if it's a non-technical person trying to sound
technical. Let's try and define some terms maybe?
24.187.234.188 sounds very much like it was from the optimum online network block, and
a quick whois shows that currently it does belong to them. That sounds about right because
they provide services around the area Hillary Clinton called home. Optonline does provide static
IP addresses. But I have to wonder, are these terminated in the house? Do we know if the email
server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's house or was it in a
DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection? Did this IP reside
on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's way updated and trendy
transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete idiot to put the
email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front of it?
How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers
that were likely there? Pretty damn likely. She didn't buy services from Stooges r Us. And even
if she did, they would probably set up a firewall. That's all saying that the vendor supplied
equipment didn't perform some firewalling technology. Anyone in the IT field would see this as
not very likely outside of pre mid 90s.
For the printer subdomain name, we think that the printer actually had IPP or something? LPD?
Are you suggesting, but not saying, that Clinton set up a printing device directly on the internet
so that while she was traveling around wherever she was when not at home and printing to that
printer? That doesn't even make sense. Or are you suggesting, but not saying, she decided this
fancy new printer she saw at Office Depot would look nice with a subdomain sitting next to her
email server? And, now she could actually print stuff while she was outside in the yard or upstairs
in the bedroom? Oh, it was connected to the internet? Really? "I didn't know it was on the internet
even though I somehow called and registered a subdomain so I could get an external IP address
for it. And I just plugged this big old CAT5(e)/6 cable into my printer directly from the wall???"
Factually we can say the following: 4 subdomains pointed to 2 IPs. 2 subdomains use the English
word "mail" and 2 subdomains use the English word "printer".
Do we know that some mail transfer agent was listening on the mail domain? I assume someone
knows this, but I've not seen any documentation on this, haven't looked, barely care. Do we have
any open ports on this other IP? Did anyone do some research? Why don't you contact Robert Graham
and ask him if masscan hit those IPs and what ports were open. Maybe he doesn't like reporters,
but you can ask nicely. Tell him some guy on the internet told you about masscan and that Rob
probably had some port information about those IPs.
"Do we know if the email server everyone is so hip to talk about was actually located at Clinton's
house or was it in a DC (rack, not washington)? If it was in her house what was the connection?
Did this IP reside on a cable modem? Was it a DSL line? Fiber? That area wasn't know for it's
way updated and trendy transport. Did the carrier provide the equipment? Did Clinton hire a complete
idiot to put the email server directly connected to the internet or was there a firewall in front
of it?"
These are all GREAT questions, many of which the FBI, in its usual half-assed manner, is probably
not even thinking about, let alone actually asking. Do you have any of the answers to any of the
questions that you yourself have raised? I mean DEFINITIVE answers, rather than just your personal
speculations?
"How likely is it that there was a firewall of sorts in front of the mail server and any printers
that were likely there? Pretty damn likely."
And you are basing that opinion/supposition on what, exactly?
She used a SUPER USER from State to set it up for her… he is not an engineer. Just a Manager
that worked for a year 'managing' remote connectivity for foreign Embassies…. he did not go to
school for CS or engineering and he has no training either. He was given immunity by the Justice
Dept and was then fired by the State Dept so obviously he did something wrong. If you read Brian's
post on FB - all of this is explained in the comments below his post with citations/links.
The CIDR block 24.187.234.184/29 was allocated to Clinton's home. If the network was configured
following standard practices, traffic between systems inside that CIDR block would not have left
Clinton's LAN, and most definitely would not have been "sent out over the Internet". Guilmette's
comments about vulnerabilities and wasting toner assume incompetence and a total absence of firewalls.
What evidence we have is that the people who setup Clinton's home LAN knew enough to configure
a router, a firewall, a VPN, and some basic CIDR netmasks.
NAT is not a security fix-all, not using NAT is not a sign of vulnerability or incompetence.
"If the network was configured following standard practices, traffic between systems inside
that CIDR block would not have left Clinton's LAN…"
And if perchance it WASN'T configured following standard practices, what then?
Does the FBI know what how the network was actually configured? Does anybody?
"Guilmette's comments about vulnerabilities and wasting toner assume incompetence and a total
absence of firewalls."
Absolutely. Is there any publically known reason to grant the sysadmin(s) who set this stuff
up any more generous assumptions vis a vis their competence? The AP and Wired news stories
about this whole issue (of the security of the server) catalog an entire boat load of security
screw ups. They don't exactly inspire confidence in the competence of the people who set this
stuff up.
"What evidence we have is that the people who setup Clinton's home LAN knew enough to configure
a router, a firewall, a VPN, and some basic CIDR netmasks."
I can teach an 8th grader of average intelligence how to do all that stuff in 1/2 hour. Teaching
him/her how to do it SECURELY takes a bit longer.
The good news is that people with no more intelligence that a bag of hammers can nowadays wander
down to the local BestBuy, purchase a network printer and a router, take them both home, plug
them in, and they just seem to work. The bad news is that people with no more intelligence than
a bag of hammers can nowadays wander down to their local BestBuy, purchase a network printer and
a router, take them both home, plug them in, and they just SEEM to work.
The mere existance of this network isn't proof that it was secure in any sense. It isn't even
evidence of that.
Agreed. The information in this article is largely speculation based on one piece of information
meta data (a DNS record).
Whether a printer existed is speculation; Whether said printer was connected to the internet
is speculation (having an IP does not equal internet connectivity); If said printer existed, and
if said printer was internet connected, any vulnerabilities in the printer itself or in the communications
path are also speculation.
It gets better. Do a dig mx clintonemail.com. You'll see that the machine's incoming email
was filtered by mxlogic.net, a spam filtering service that works by received all your emails,
filtering out the spam, and forwarding you the rest.
This is because the hosting provider, Platte River Network, sold a package along with the hosting.
The package included spam filtering and full-disk off-site backup (since then seized by the FBI).
So every email received by Clinton was going through many unsecured places, including a spam
filtering queue, a backup appliance and an off-site backup server. Which has already been documented.
"It gets better. Do a dig mx clintonemail.com. You'll see that the machine's incoming email
was filtered by mxlogic.net, a spam filtering service that works by received all your emails,
filtering out the spam, and forwarding you the rest."
That arrangement appears to have only been in effect since circa June, 2013. We should think
also about the time BOTH before and after that.
;; bailiwick: clintonemail.com.
;; count: 5454
;; first seen: 2013-06-24 21:27:43 -0000
;; last seen: 2016-05-26 12:57:43 -0000
clintonemail.com. IN MX 10 clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogic.net.
clintonemail.com. IN MX 10 clintonemail.com.inbound10.mxlogicmx.net.
"This is because the hosting provider, Platte River Network, sold a package along with the
hosting. The package included spam filtering and full-disk off-site backup (since then seized
by the FBI)."
Was that all in the report? I guess I'll have to go and read that whole thing now.
Interesting footnote: On tonight's NBC Evening Nudes, they mentioned that the FBI had seized
Clinton's server, and also a USB thumb drive in August of last year. No mention of any PRINTERS
being seized. (Typical incompetent FBI, still operating in the Louis Freeh era. The man didn't
even know how to use a computer, and didn't want to.)
"So every email received by Clinton was going through many unsecured places, including a spam
filtering queue, a backup appliance and an off-site backup server. Which has already been documented."
Um, yep. You're right. Arguably, the security of Clinton's e-mails were even WORSE after the
switch in June, 2013, than it had been before that.
And let's not forget that the Stored Communications Act makes it perfectly legal for any service
provider who happens to have YOUR e-mails on THEIR hard drives to peek at those e-mails, pretty
much as they see fit, as long as doing so is ostensibly or arguably for "technical" reasons having
to do with the management of the service they are providing.
(Google goes further and has software that looks at everything, for marketing/advertising purposes.
All 100% legal, based on their end luser contracts, I'm sure.)
So this is basically like when some NSA people got caught peeking at the NSA's records on their
love interests. When they get caught, they just shrug, promise never to do it again, and nobody
goes to jail.
How many sysadmins at MXLogic had access to Clinton's emails? If the one lone guy who pulled
the graveyard shift poked around into those e-mails, at say 3AM, would anybody even know that
had happened? (Even the NSA didn't know what Snowden had looked at until he was already long gone,
and even then, they weren't entirely sure.)
Ah, Brian, it appears that both the Chinese and the Russians had complete access to Hillary's
rogue mail server going back to 2013. I'm not sure there's any point in talking about the printer.
A Romanian cab driver, known as Guccifer and now sitting in a U.S. jail, claimed to have found
her mail server and gotten complete access to it in 2013, up to two years before Farsight discovered
it in March 2015.
But there is a subsequent story that claimed that Guccifer tried to hack into Russian systems
which the Russians discovered. They, in turn, planted malware on Guccifer's computer that allowed
them to see everything that he was able to hack into. It's likely that the Russians have every
piece of email that went through Hillary's server. If there are any missing, we should ask them
about it.
like most hackers, hes a pathological liar. Its in their nature. He came out real quick
to brag and prove how he hacked a clinton aid. But didn't want to tell anybody until he went to
jail and she runing for president that that he hacked clintons emails? I call total BS.
Nobody with any brains believes the recent headline-grabbing pronouncements from this criminal
Guccifer. He's pretty obviously just failing around and hoping that he can come up with some topical
story that will get him in the newspapers and maybe… if they are really dumb… entice his prosecutors
into cutting him some sort of a deal if he "talks" about his alleged break-in to the Clinton server.
But so far, he hasn't produced a single shred of credible evidence to back up his wild claims,
and as someone pointed out, it is really rather absurd, even or especially for someone in his
position, to VOLUNTARILY cop to yet another federal felony.
The smart money says that if anyone ever did compromise any part of Clinton's network, that
party will be smart enough to NEVER talk about that, except to his paymasters, or to whoever is
willing and able to purchase the exflitrated data, with utmost confidentiality and discretion,
obviously.
I assume that when China, Russia, Israel, Germany, Britian, India, Pakistan, etc… reconnoitered
Secretary Clinton's web presence and discovered her use of a private email server and printer,
they would have devoted the required time and resources to compromise them, one way or the other.
That's what state-sponsored intelligence services do. If I were either Clinton, I would assume
my email was compromised and assume my nation-state adversaries have everything … just the same
as if I used the State Department's email system.
Ironically, she would have been better off using the State Dept. email system: she would have
known from the start that eventually every message would be in the hands of our adversaries.
1. DOCSIS – LOL. While her cable company's DOCSIS 3.1 does have encrypted features to prevent
someone on the copper from doing the equivalent of ARP poisoning to pretend to be her gateway,
I have not yet – anywhere in New England or the Mid Atlantic – found those encryption features
enabled. They are left off intentionally by every provider I have tested probably for bandwidth
profit reasons. Her packets were sniffable. Period.
2. FOX level hypocrisy detected.
Let's not forget that Rove and Cheney ran the US government for years during a time of war
using an Exchange 2003 RNC server. When called on it, suddenly (Oopsy, TeeHee!) all the millions
of those email messages – and their backups – got 'accidentally' deleted rather than letting the
world + dog see what those two chimps were trusting Microsoft security to keep safe. Any talk
of Orange suits needs to put those two at the front of the line.
As far as I'm concerned with Hillary, I'd like to see her precedent more widely adopted – hardened
personal mail stores to restore privacy. Screw the folks who think snooping everyone's email is
their personal right under some secret law.
"More importantly, any emails or other documents that the Clintons decided to print would be
sent out over the Internet - however briefly - before going back to the printer. And that data
may have been sniffable by other customers of the same ISP, Guilmette said."
How/why would this be the case?
I can see if we make the assumption of all machines using internal IPs so packets headed to
24.187.234.188 would route out then bounce back in … but if it was local net, or if it was defined
in hosts or the router (also assumptions) then it would never have to bounce out except for a
a lookup.
or am I missing something here ..?
Did the sysadmin(s) who set up the mail and printer systems have security clearance(s)
to read all the Mrs. Clinton's mail and print jobs?
Because she certainly gave the sysadmin(s) the ability to read her mail and print jobs.
archive the data, and transport the data anywhere. If that was not all done by State Department
IT employee(s). how is this not a punishable offense?
It boggles my mind to think that anyone could defend Mrs. Clinton for this blatant breach of
national security.
My understanding is that the same person who set up Bill Clinton's website and email after
he left office set up Secretary Clinton's; hence, the shared IP addresses for similarly worded
domains. Also, wasn't the same server used for both?
I think this person was granted immunity.
Worrying about whether an indictment is in the future is like wondering what verdicts a jury
is going to return. That is something that I learned from a veteran attorney.
So I am in the printer industry, and this story is interesting for a couple of reasons.
1) Most IP based printers (read connected via ethernet card rather than USB "local" connection)
allow for users and administrators to log in to the printer via the IP address and adjust settings,
install new firmware, and so forth. For a state hacker, this could be gold – and the default "service"
logins and passwords can typically be found in service manuals readily available on the web.
2) On that issue, one of the things that a lot of multi function devices ("all in one") allow
for is "multi plexing". "Multi plexing" is performing multiple functions with a single job submission.
For example, there are machines that can receive an incoming fax, print that fax out, forward
the fax using SMB to an archive (typically, but not always on the same subnet), forward that fax
via email to a recipient, forward that fax to another fax machine using telephony, forward that
fax to a fax server using LAN faxing, and so on. You can see how tempting a multifunction machine
would be to a a state intelligence service.
3) All the components in a machine are commercially available, from limited manufacturers –
there are only so many manufacturers for memory, motherboards, etc. For a state intelligence service
with a lot of money – setting up a clone in a lab to use as a template to re-engineer would be
relatively cheap.
4) Many PostScript enabled printers allow for firmware upgrades as a PostScript print submission
– so the printer could be reprogrammed with new firmware (essentially re engineered) remotely
by anyone with access to the IP. Essentially, the multi plexing could be reprogrammed to sent
print submissions out to a server controlled by a foreign intelligence service. Now, this isn't
something that a pimply faced hacker could do. Too expensive, and too time consuming. But if you
had an organization that could figure out how to reprogram centrifuges…
5) Many printers by default "assign themselves" ports with known weaknesses (I'm looking at
you, Port 8xxx), and open those ports up to allow communication over a network – for example,
the "flag" that pops up on your computer to let you know the printer is out of paper. Depending
on how a printer is set up for internet printing, this may or may not apply. Experienced IP administrators
will go back, and change the port settings – if they think of it. But in many cases it is not
something that they are thinking about.
I say follow the money. Look at the links between Clinton Foundation and classified information.
She setup a private email server knowingly to exempt her from compliance. Now, the after
the fact doesn't really matter. And she knows that… A .gov address would have full rights to all
corispondance as the information belongs the the government and can be requested by ant civilian…
"... There are really two prongs to this investigation: the sensitive handling or mishandling of classified information in the form of emails. But there is also another aspect of this and that is the significant monies that came to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton held a high cabinet-level political position. And it is a violation of the law for political officials to accept money. This is somewhat of a grey area. But there are indications that part of the investigation is not only looking at the handling or mishandling of classified information… but, on the second hand, is an individual in an official capacity accepting money or favors on behalf of their position with the US government. ..."
"... When I was an FBI agent and I worked overseas, I was not able to accept anything that had a value over 25 dollars… So, there is a big question about not only the handling of information, but also the accepting of gifts. There has been anecdotal information that upwards of $57 million went into the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. So, that is something that the investigation will look at. ..."
"... Could that be an obstruction of justice? Interesting to see. Were emails destroyed? That is a violation of the law in terms of destruction of evidence ..."
"... I think there is a gross negligence of the handling of classified information that protects our national security. ..."
"... They take their orders from the owners of government just like all federal employees. Military included! Oaths mean NOTHING to US government employees. You swear to uphold the constitution and when or if you do you end up like snowden or manning. You collect your pay and your benefits and do as your told otherwise your dealt with like they deal with any citizen that disobeys, they destroy your life one way or another. ..."
"... The handling of Hillary's email is the least of her crimes. She was essentially running a regime change for profit using the US military during her tenure as secretary of state. ..."
"... I had not heard the regime-change-for-profit angle. Fascinating. Hideous. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton taking advantage of her power in such a blatant way setting up a home server for a top US office is beyond poor judgement. That says she believes she is above the law. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both narcissistic without forethought. They both do what they want and either get out of the way or suffer the cc consequences. They both believe they can do anything. The sad part is the other political powers are either an ally or afraid of them. The media, politicians, corporate executives are either afraid of them or part of corruption. ..."
"... We'll see if the FBI has any balls or just talk. ..."
"... ...and yet, Donald Trump did not set-up a private server system just to get around the rules of being Secretary of State. Why find a roundabout way to have Trump share blame with Clinton for her dishonest behavior and poor choices? He wasn't the one who made them: She did. ..."
"... Their shady deals were made behind closed doors with the only witnesses being those who would, themselves, be implicated if word got out. I'm currently reading "Clinton Cash" and it just blows my mind. Those two are the absolute epitome of corruption. ..."
"... i dont know about this if she has jeopadised national security then she is no different to bradley manning the fbi plays no favourites although bradley manning did everyone a favour by what he did but hillary did it to put herself into the white house ..."
Clinton faces questioning over her handling of classified information in emails, as well as funds
received by the Clinton Foundation while she was in high office, James Conway former FBI agent and
Managing Director of Global Intel Strategies told RT.
CBS News reported that Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton will be interviewed by the
FBI in the near future regarding messages sent and received on her private email server.
RT: What kind of steps may we expect to see taken by the FBI with regards to Hillary Clinton
and her email controversy? Will she receive some sort of special privilege due to her high-ranking
position?
James Conway: I do know the protocols and standards the FBI follows when it comes to serious
violations of the law. First of all, the FBI is an apolitical organization that has nothing to do
with politics. Agents of the FBI and support employees of the FBI take an oath to uphold the law.
And that's regardless of who may have committed violations of the law.
It is immaterial whether it is the First Lady, or it is the lady down the street, or it is the
mayor of a city - it doesn't matter. The FBI has a long history of enforcing the law. And sometimes
people who are subjects to those investigations happen to be high-level political officials. So,
it has happened a number of times. Just two years ago David Petraeus was charged, former general
and former Director of the CIA was charged with violations of the law as it pertains to the protection
or the passage of sensitive, classified information which is somewhat the subject of this ongoing
investigation or the allegations that have been brought forward against the former First Lady and
current candidate for the president of the US.
RT: Does the investigation pose a threat to Clinton's presidential aspirations?
JC: Political commentators have said this. The FBI has said nothing. The FBI's investigation
is extremely complex. They are looking at years of activity; they are looking at thousands and thousands
of transactions in cyberspace. There are really two prongs to this investigation: the sensitive
handling or mishandling of classified information in the form of emails. But there is also another
aspect of this and that is the significant monies that came to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation
while Mrs. Clinton held a high cabinet-level political position. And it is a violation of the law
for political officials to accept money. This is somewhat of a grey area. But there are indications
that part of the investigation is not only looking at the handling or mishandling of classified information…
but, on the second hand, is an individual in an official capacity accepting money or favors on behalf
of their position with the US government.
When I was an FBI agent and I worked overseas, I was not able to accept anything that had a value
over 25 dollars… So, there is a big question about not only the handling of information, but also
the accepting of gifts. There has been anecdotal information that upwards of $57 million went into
the coffers of the Clinton Foundation while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. So, that is something
that the investigation will look at.
RT: How serious are the charges that Hillary Clinton faces?
JC: Personally, I know that the handling of classified information is extremely sensitive. And
it is viewed by the courts and by national security folks […] as extremely valuable and important.
And those who violate those laws and rules are subject to severe penalties. And sometimes, in the
case of David Petraeus, he passed some sensitive information, not official documents, but in the
forms of notes to Paula Broadwell who was writing a book about him […]. In this particular case that
everybody is talking about in America, because it is within the context of the ongoing presidential
campaign here, Hillary Clinton didn't use a State Department closed email system […] Mrs. Clinton
had her own public server and that is how she was communicating with her associates and others within
the government. To me, that's a clear problem. She has been asked to provide all of that traffic
and there have been instances during the course of the investigation that maybe she didn't hand over
all those documents, all of that email traffic. Could that be an obstruction of justice? Interesting
to see. Were emails destroyed? That is a violation of the law in terms of destruction of evidence.
So, there are a lot of problems here. I think there is a gross negligence of the handling of
classified information that protects our national security.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
@PeteSanger, ·8 May
"Agents of the FBI and support employees of the FBI take an oath to uphold the law."
If that were the case then they would have reopened the investigation of the so called terrorist
attacks on 9/11.
They take their orders from the owners of government just like all federal employees. Military
included! Oaths mean NOTHING to US government employees. You swear to uphold the constitution
and when or if you do you end up like snowden or manning. You collect your pay and your benefits
and do as your told otherwise your dealt with like they deal with any citizen that disobeys, they
destroy your life one way or another.
@Emmett647, 8 May
The handling of Hillary's email is the least of her crimes. She was essentially running
a regime change for profit using the US military during her tenure as secretary of state.
@LouCoatney -> @Emmett647, ·8 May
I had not heard the regime-change-for-profit angle. Fascinating. Hideous.
@CarolOrcutt, 8 May
Hillary Clinton taking advantage of her power in such a blatant way setting up a home server
for a top US office is beyond poor judgement. That says she believes she is above the law.
There is a pattern of her apologizing after she makes thoughtless decisions and many when
she was Secretary of State and first lady. Her holding these positions does not make her a better
candidate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both narcissistic without forethought. They
both do what they want and either get out of the way or suffer the cc consequences. They both
believe they can do anything. The sad part is the other political powers are either an ally or
afraid of them. The media, politicians, corporate executives are either afraid of them or part
of corruption.
We'll see if the FBI has any balls or just talk.
@MidnightAndLulu -> @CarolOrcutt, 9 May
...and yet, Donald Trump did not set-up a private server system just to get around the
rules of being Secretary of State. Why find a roundabout way to have Trump share blame with Clinton
for her dishonest behavior and poor choices? He wasn't the one who made them: She did.
@Andy007, ·8 May
On RT German I read an article (inspired by Seymour Hersh), that Hillary Clinton supported
an secret CIA operation in Libya in 2012, to let steal sarin gas stocks from Gaddafi Regime, to
bring it to Syria, and gave it to islamist rebels, who use it to kill thousands of Syrian people.
In the world's press Asssad was the mass murderer, the offender. I'm not sure if there are some
evidence. But is it clever to support Hillary Clinton, when there are so sensible allegations
against her? Perhaps it is gossip perhaps not. For the Democrats it could be painful, if Hillary
get president and someday in future she must resign, when she get an indictment and must go into
prison. For the Democrats is now the time to clear if it's true or not. Sure I like Bernie Sanders
more than Hillary Clinton, he is a good man. But this is not the point. If Mrs. Clinton was part
of a criminal mission the Democrats must clear it, or bear up the consequences in future.
@ChristinaJones, 9 May
Unfortunately I doubt anything will come of this. They (both Bill and Hillary) have been able
to successfully skirt the law for a very long time now. They have amassed power and wealth by
exploiting their positions and connections and have committed their offenses and done their dirty
deeds right under everyone's noses. It disgusts me. I'm sure there are those in law enforcement
who would love to take them down, are fully aware of their crimes, but, alas, our legal system
requires definitive proof of any wrongdoings regardless of how obvious they are. There would have
to be a recording of a conversation or an email (perhaps among 30,000 deleted?) That proves, without
a doubt, that promises were made and delivered on in exchange for "contributions". The Clintons
aren't stupid, especially Hillary.
Their shady deals were made behind closed doors with the only witnesses being those who
would, themselves, be implicated if word got out. I'm currently reading "Clinton Cash" and it
just blows my mind. Those two are the absolute epitome of corruption. Maybe, just maybe,
this whole email situation is the break many have been looking for. If there is any justice at
all in America the Clintons will be exposed for all they truly are and brought up on charges,
convicted. I have my doubts though. I think what's most sickening is how they (Hillary) has exploited
Americans gullibility by playing the victim in this tiresome "that evil GOP is always out to get
me!" narrative. Wake up, people! The proof is there, all you have to do is look. I'm not anywhere
close to a Republican and I see it. That's because I bothered to look.
@WayneJohnson -> @ChristinaJones, 9 May
i dont know about this if she has jeopadised national security then she is no different
to bradley manning the fbi plays no favourites although bradley manning did everyone a favour
by what he did but hillary did it to put herself into the white house
@Venom88, 8 May
The wicked witch of the west. Check how's she walks it's so odd...
"... Bernie Sanders keeps refusing' to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But maybe the Vermont senator's relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton's corporate ties is about her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than classified information... ..."
The focus is on state secrets in her email - but what personal favors lay within?
Bernie Sanders keeps refusing' to hit Hillary Clinton over her email. Or so it seems. But
maybe the Vermont senator's relentless assault on Mrs. Clinton's corporate ties is about
her email after all. Maybe Mr. Sanders is betting that Hillary has a bigger problem than
classified information...
"... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
"... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
"... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
"... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
"... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
"... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
"... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
"... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
"... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and
consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states
on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie
Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for
"convenience."
Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just
given immunity by the Justice Department. According to
The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to
his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."
First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department
granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The
Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved
with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat
in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or
31,830 deleted emails.
These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.
Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person
is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano
pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in
Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in
early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated
in
The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges
and, if so, against whom."
... ... ...
In addition to
born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining
the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well
as
Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never
explained the political utility of owning a private server.
Why did Hillary need to own a private server?
Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government
networks?
... ... ...
There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps
the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their
recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a
Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton
email server:
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked
on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation
into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement
official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's
2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely
to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server,
how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information
in emails, current and former officials said.
... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's
attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
"There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it
criminal wrongdoing?"
... ... ...
As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's
Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants
immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:
Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted
an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators,
a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.
With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their
focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified
matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.
.... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as
stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:
The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens
of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.
At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said
he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an
effort to learn more about those emails...
Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified
at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the
State Department-led pre-release review process.
Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof
of
born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
believes Hillary Clinton should
"drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.
... ... ....
Tim Black
Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member
I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton
not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'.
Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.
This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking
me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!
Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is
no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had
been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held
accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods
sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.
Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed
O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's
pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.
Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California
I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just
so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her
aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This
says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.
This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may
be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen.
Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.
No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.
Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean
that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought
they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the
shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton
email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.
Thats not an assumption-its
a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000
emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest
level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.
The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton
foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the
huge REAL as opposed to emails
Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a
crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had
evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify
about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even
on this small fish.
This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his
attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not
going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues
outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about.
It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his
campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges.
My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic.
My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients
have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.
There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political
assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest
here, as they are involved.
Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled this week that Clinton and her top aides should be questioned
under oath about her email arrangement, signaling the start of an entirely new legal headache for
the now White House contender and her campaign team.
The lawsuit, brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, will pick up again in
a few weeks in mid-March when the group files its preliminary plan for the questioning. State has
until Apr. 5 to respond, and then Judicial Watch gets 10 days to file a reply.
The legal maneuvering means that Clinton aides could be deposed during the dog days of summer
and potentially well into the general election. Another months-long round of questions about her
emails could drag her entire campaign down as it did last year and give Sanders another shot at the
nomination or hobble her in a contest against the GOP nominee.
"... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
"... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
"... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
"... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
"... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
"... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
"... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
"... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
"... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
"... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
"... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
"... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
"... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
"... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
"... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
"... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
"... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
"... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
"... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
"... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
"... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
The Obama administration
confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some
of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding
one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa
presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.
jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04
Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which
means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary.
We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.
And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is
or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the
security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what
kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore
she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.
Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46
And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication
system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.
There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up
the bill?
And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...
Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29
In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading
to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities
are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa)
and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect
for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there
aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the
administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000
g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a
certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the
GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's
gone on here...
Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23
SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at
the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access
is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .
Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17
She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will
be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating
her unfitness.
eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15
Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing,
based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that
she intended to break any laws.
since when has ignorance been a defence?
nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05
Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that
what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.
Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18
Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified
material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified
material."
She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So
already some Clinton-esque word parsing
And then what people said who used to do her job:
fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly
of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
"She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering,
"The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something
that appears to be a serious breach of security."
It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information
Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out
that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure
agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked
or not."
Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server
in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking
it in a file cabinet...
beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08
Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in
Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was
it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who
cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim
that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K
Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.
Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07
The Secretary of State is
an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible
to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or
not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.
Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00
The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend
an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting
his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing
President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat
elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.
The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment
to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to
be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their
chances.
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57
In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained
access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924
of the US Criminal Code.
According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes
to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.
According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information "
with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up
to a year in prison.
The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."
According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified
material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for
convenience."
Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee,
irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal
effects."
As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified
processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."
kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54
I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are
Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...
Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53
Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq
disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam
and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya
and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring
until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another
military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got
used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........
PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44
Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker
for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.
USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41
Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is
implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains
of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?
We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does.
I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually
and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.
Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.
Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist
Richard Branson with Virgin Media.
David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.
Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.
Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also
worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.
Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson,
previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.
Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.
Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car
rental firm EasyCar.
Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.
John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued
successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.
Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather
(gulp) a journalist.
Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers
FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36
Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe
the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.
MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28
The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy
and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of
our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.
The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings
within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence
that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law,
though we set that precedent long ago.
makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08
What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months
into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's
German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails,
doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information
from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?
Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.
Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the
phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly
a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted
mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.
As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when
people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because
it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what
they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.
The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that
sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.
Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context
of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but
in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall
or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.
Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it
mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely
even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also
a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?
It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that
network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating
with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in
hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).
And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not
enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.
I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept
based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.
seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37
Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and
gave it to foreign nationals.
Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive
nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured
private network.
dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28
Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top
secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered
a grave threat to the security of the United States.
Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information,
the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely
limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need
to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would
be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access
program clearance to go with it.
For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the
most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine
bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.
Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most
extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away
to acknowledge this.
What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret
SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'
That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down
area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to
ensure it's protected from further disclosure.
Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this
critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign
puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.
(Sorry for the length of the post)
Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22
yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides
of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative
mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.
Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline
the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John
saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of
decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political
opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here
chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18
The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and
then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified
system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding
the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature
was constant.
If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone
classified or special access traffic.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05
Give it up.
She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails
after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program
information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether
or not it has been recently classified appropriately.
chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 19:04
18USC Section793(f)
$250,000 and ten years.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00
False.
Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.
dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58
You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently,
they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been
decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries.
And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and
not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.
fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46
She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.
Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving
on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.
24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of
a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said
their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports
stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case
died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner
ruled death due to suicide)
32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural
causes"?
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!
Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42
THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .
Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this
is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates
of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart
attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with
her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to
testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported
to have been having an affair with Hillary.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact
in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the
top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated,
and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on
the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot
wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed
Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several
Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down
in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building
a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files
were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994,
in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide
ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide
at the grave site of his fiancée.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window
of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal,
Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December
9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment.
Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guaranty scandal.
Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41
Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.
Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35
Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was
in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.
Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.
RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33
Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required
to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing)
in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary
Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through
because of Who She Is?
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32
Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and
used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain
no government records.
Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State
Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake
and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play
by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter.
Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on
your server.
Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents
pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents
on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years.
Thats a huge violation.
Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret
by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material
would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have
to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't
give me a lot of confidence.
Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material
would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called
him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically
put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.
Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10
Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while
at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and
did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured
server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who
had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full
knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?
MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07
Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them
and never allowed ANY to be seen.
Typical GOP
Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.
OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53
Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained
on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary
of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and
the third for accountability.
Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.
Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50
Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings
or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since
left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter
and demanded anonymity."
You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in
fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..
Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50
No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the
most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.
Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured
home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The
fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence
and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.
This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the
truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also
investigating.
This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government
yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately
maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations
governing recordkeeping requirements.
At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established
rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a
backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.
If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign
state.
This is actually a huge story.
TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41
This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd
be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?
Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs
Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --
Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.
HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41
They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was
classified at the time of transmission,
Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs.
Clinton.
If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster
and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from
the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !
In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15
Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States
just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that
ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.
dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09
Irrelevant?
Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.
And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret
or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that
anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked
as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.
She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never
have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.
Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00
It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does
become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a
barrel".
DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40
Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?
Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to
effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and
receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server.
Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence
contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others --
been released late on a Friday.
It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on
a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these
communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant
has enough sense to come in out of the rain.
"... But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security checkpoints and has two reception areas ..."
"... Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security presence ..."
"... It has also been reported that hackers tried to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which were designed to gain access to her computer. ..."
"... a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired. ..."
Datto Inc has been revealed to have stored Hillary Clinton's emails - which contained national
secrets - when it backed up her private server
It claims it runs 'data fortresses' monitored by security 24 hours a day, where only a retinal
or palm scan allows access to its facilities
But its building in Bern Township, Pennsylvania, doesn't have a perimeter fence or security
checkpoints and has two reception areas
Dumpsters at the site were left open and unguarded, and loading bays have no security
presence
Clinton faces first Democratic debate tonight amid falling poll numbers and growing questions
The congressional committee is focusing on what happened to the server after she left office in
a controversy that is dogging her presidential run and harming her trust with voters.
In the latest developments it emerged that hackers in China, South Korea and Germany tried to
gain access to the server after she left office. It has also been reported that hackers tried
to gain access to her personal email address by sending her emails disguised parking violations which
were designed to gain access to her computer.
Daily Mail Online has previously revealed how a former senior executive at Datto was allegedly
able to steal sensitive information from the company's systems after she was fired.
Hackers also managed to completely take over a Datto storage device, allowing them to steal whatever
data they wanted.
Employees at the company, which is based in Norwalk, Connecticut, have a maverick attitude and
see themselves as 'disrupters' of a staid industry.
On their Facebook page they have posed for pictures wearing ugly sweaters and in fancy dress including
stereotypes of Mexicans.
Its founder, Austin McChord, has been called the 'Steve Jobs' of data storage and who likes to
play in his offices with Nerf guns and crazy costumes.
"... " That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this" -- ..."
"... The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate attacks. ..."
"... Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas. ..."
"... The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer for Fidelis Cybersecurity. ..."
"... The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections. ..."
Investigation by the Associated Press reveals that the clintonemail.com server lacked basic protections
Microsoft remote desktop service she used was not intended for use without additional safety
features - but had none
Government and computer industry had warned at the time that such set-ups could be hacked
- but nothing was done to make server safer
President this weekend denied national security had been put at risk by his secretary of state
but FBI probe is still under way
... ... ...
Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to
allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records
compiled in 2012.
Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional
protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over
attacks from even low-skilled intruders.
.... ... ...
Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua,
New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet.
" That's total amateur hour. Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these
things, would not do this" -- Marc Maiffret, cyber security expert
One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities,
known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's
server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary
of state for all work messages.
Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions
about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment
protection against self-incrimination.
Some emails on Clinton's server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included
confidential or sensitive information.
Clinton has said that her server featured 'numerous safeguards,' but she has yet to explain
how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
'That's total amateur hour,' said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies.
He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone
choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. 'Real enterprise-class security,
with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this,' he said.
The government and security firms have published warnings about allowing this kind of remote
access to Clinton's server. The same software was targeted by an infectious Internet worm, known
as Morta, which exploited weak passwords to break into servers. The software also was known to be
vulnerable to brute-force attacks that tried password combinations until hackers broke in, and in
some cases it could be tricked into revealing sensitive details about a server to help hackers formulate
attacks.
'An attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,' said the Homeland
Security Department's U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012, the same year Clinton's server
was scanned.
Also in 2012, the State Department had outlawed use of remote-access software for its technology
officials to maintain unclassified servers without a waiver. It had banned all instances of remotely
connecting to classified servers or servers located overseas.
The findings suggest Clinton's server 'violates the most basic network-perimeter security
tenets: Don't expose insecure services to the Internet,' said Justin Harvey, the chief security officer
for Fidelis Cybersecurity.
Clinton's email server at one point also was operating software necessary to publish websites,
although it was not believed to have been used for this purpose.
Traditional security practices dictate shutting off all a server's unnecessary functions to prevent
hackers from exploiting design flaws in them.
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports
on three devices, including her email system.
Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or
functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace
it to her home.
Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said
it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote
desktop would have been vulnerable.
Those risks - such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine - were
'clearly serious' and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called 'back doors.'
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding
agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks.
It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such
as secure VPN connections.
It is not true that server was ever was located in "Bathroom closet". But the nickname stick...
Notable quotes:
"... At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm," ..."
"... "I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure [enough for Clinton]." ..."
"... Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Congress that at least five emails from Clinton's private server contained classified information. ..."
"... "top secret," ..."
"... "I'm not sure how that all happened, all I know he was saying he had the opportunity to make quite a bit of money doing it," ..."
"... "Our internal network was extremely secure. At the time Inca St was a relatively obscure location, second floor office. The technology we had in place was pretty good. The security we had in place at the office was really good to protect our well-being." ..."
"... "what changed after I left the company I have no idea, I really could not comment on that. I don't know." ..."
"... "subject to a criminal investigation for the potential release of classified material." ..."
A small IT management firm employed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton kept its servers
containing her private emails in a bathroom closet of its loft-apartment office, according to a new
report, in another absurd twist to the Democrat's 2016 run.
Platte River Networks, based in Denver, Colorado, was hired in mid-2013 by then-US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton to maintain her old email server, according to the company's lawyer.
Until this summer, Platte River Networks' office was a loft apartment in downtown Denver, and
the servers were stored in a bathroom closet, former employees
told the Daily Mail.
The company recently told ABC News it is
"highly likely" a full backup copy of the server was made, meaning emails deleted by
Clinton could still exist.
Clinton handed the servers to federal investigators
last week.
Experts believe more than 60,000 emails deleted by Clinton could be recoverable.
Clinton, presumed the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, tasked Platte
River Networks with protecting her personal email account long before any scrutiny surfaced over
Clinton's handling of classified information on private servers.
One former employee described Platte River Networks as a "mom and pop shop"
that seemed
unlikely to be a go-to cybersecurity firm for a top government official to house state secrets. Few
employees knew that Clinton was a client, the Daily Mail reported.
"At the time I worked for them they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hilary Clinton
because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very
high security, we didn't even have an alarm," said Tera Dadiotis, a customer relations consultant
between 2007 and 2010.
"I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the
bathroom. I mean knowing how small Platte River Networks... I don't see how that would be secure
[enough for Clinton]."
Platte River Networks moved into a larger workspace earlier this year.
Last week, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Congress that
at least five emails from Clinton's private server contained classified information. The messages,
dating from 2006 and 2008, contained signal intercepts and surveillance photos from Keyhole satellites
operated by the CIA and the Pentagon. Two of the emails were labeled "top secret,"
according to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley.
Clinton has said nothing in the content of the emails was classified at the time that she received
them. According to court documents more than 300
emails have been flagged for "further inspection."
How did Platte River Networks, a small but reputable IT management company in Denver, receive
such a prized contract? Ex-employees said David DeCamillis, the company's vice-president of sales
and marketing, was active in Democratic Party circles and may have pursued her business.
Platte River co-founder Tom Welch said DeCamillis hoped to rent his home to vice president candidate
Joe Biden during the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, according to Daily Mail. But Biden didn't
take the deal, said Welch, who sold his third of the company in 2010.
"I'm not sure how that all happened, all I know he was saying he had the opportunity to make
quite a bit of money doing it," Welch said.
Since Clinton's server did not encrypt emails, critics have also raised concerns over the possibility
that hackers may have obtained classified information from her official correspondence. The Clinton
campaign maintains there had been no breaches in security.
Welch said the company's servers were secure when he was involved.
"Our internal network was extremely secure. At the time Inca St was a relatively obscure location,
second floor office. The technology we had in place was pretty good. The security we had in place
at the office was really good to protect our well-being."
He added that "what changed after I left the company I have no idea, I really could not comment
on that. I don't know."
New polls coming out of New Hampshire and other early primary states suggest Clinton would lose
not just to her primary rival for the party nomination, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but also
to some Republican contenders. Her favorability and trustworthiness ratings continue to be low.
A poll by Monmouth University, released before the server handover, showed that 52 percent of
respondents thought the emails should be "subject to a criminal investigation for the potential
release of classified material."
"... By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog . ..."
"... Originally stored on a private server , with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex 's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. ..."
"... The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. ..."
"... David Goldwyn , who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role. ..."
"... The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private " [email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business. ..."
"... It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account. ..."
By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative
journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally
published at
DeSmogBlog.
Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more
about the origins of
energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month
rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton,
now a Democratic presidential candidate.
Originally
stored on a private server, with Clinton and her
closest advisors
using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to
break state-owned company
Pemex's (Petroleos
Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and
gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton,
now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped
create.
The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led
State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business
in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio.
The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also
used his private "[email protected]" (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business.
It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances,
as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at
the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account.
The National Security Agency want to be able to hack more people, vacuum up even more of your internet
records and have the keys to tech companies' encryption – and, after 18 months of
embarrassing
inaction from Congress on surveillance reform, the NSA
is now lobbying it for more powers, not less.
NSA director Mike Rogers
testified in front of a Senate committee this week, lamenting that the poor ol' NSA just doesn't
have the "cyber-offensive" capabilities (read: the ability to hack people) it needs to adequately
defend the US. How cyber-attacking countries will help cyber-defense is anybody's guess, but the
idea that the NSA is somehow hamstrung is absurd.
The NSA runs sophisticated hacking operations all over the world. A Washington Post report showed
that the NSA
carried out 231 "offensive" operations in 2011 - and that number has surely grown since then.
That report also revealed that the NSA runs a $652m project that has infected tens of thousands of
computers with malware.
And that was four years ago - it's likely increased significantly. A leaked presidential directive
issued in 2012 called for an expanded list of hacking targets all over the world. The NSA
spends ten of millions of dollars per year to procure "'software vulnerabilities' from private
malware vendors" – i.e., holes in software that will make their hacking much easier. The NSA has
even created a system, according
to Edward Snowden, that can automatically hack computers overseas that attempt to hack systems
in the US.
Moving further in this direction, Rogers has
also called for another new law that would force tech companies to install backdoors into all
their encryption. The move has provoked condemnation and scorn from the entire security community
- including
a very public upbraiding by Yahoo's top security executive - as it would be a disaster for the
very cybersecurity that the director says is a top priority.
And then there is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa) the downright awful "cybersecurity"
bill
passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week in complete secrecy that is little more
than an excuse to conduct more surveillance. The bill will do little to stop cyberattacks, but it
will do a lot to give the NSA even more power to collect Americans' communications from tech companies
without any legal process whatsoever. The bill's text was finally released a couple days ago, and,
as EFF points out, tucked in the bill were the powers to do the exact type of "offensive" attacks
for which Rogers is pining.
While the NSA tries to throw every conceivable expansion of power against the wall hoping that
something sticks, the clock continues to tick on Section 215 of the Patriot Act – the law which the
spy agency secretly used to collect every American's phone records. Congress has to re-authorize
by vote in June or it will expire, and as Steve Vladick
wrote on Just Security this week, there seems to be no high-level negotiations going on between
the administration and Congress over reforms to the NSA in the lead-up to the deadline. Perhaps,
as usual, the NSA now thinks it can emerge from yet another controversy over its extraordinary
powers and still end up receiving more?
Chad Castellano -> Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:58
Actually it doesn't matter if it is an American phone or computer. The NSA actually has no
laws stopping them from doing this to foreign companies. The tens of thousands of computers they
hacked in this article are computers outside US jurisdiction. And they have put hardline taps
on companies overseas. So right now the only computers or phones with any legal protections are
the ones in the U.S. The rest of the world is a legal target for the NSA. Always have been.
What we need is to disband the NSA and replace it with a 100% transparent agency not made up
of megalomaniacs.
Kevin OConnor 21 Mar 2015 13:46
After reading this article , you need to ask yourself...
Anybody want to buy an American computer ?
How about an American phone ?
No ?
Hmm...I see an economic problem here ...
Mike5000 21 Mar 2015 13:34
The West has transitioned from democracies and republics to criminal empires run by spook gangs.
With total information comes total blackmail capability. Lawmakers and judges are puppets.
Fictional 007 was licensed to kill. Real spook gangs get away with murder, kidnapping, torture,
blackmail, commercial espionage, narcotics, and arms trafficking.
ondelette -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 12:29
Do tell. And when did stopping teenagers from joining ISIS become a problem of analyzing vacuumed
foreign intelligence data? Do you really want the government to be the party making decisions
for teenagers and sorting them out into ones who should be changed and ones who are safe the way
they are? Based on surveillance?
The purpose of the government isn't to act as in loco parentis in place of idiots who don't
know what to do with a child once it's not a cute baby anymore.
thankgodimanatheist -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:41
You are assuming that the real powers in the world want to stop Daesh (ISIS) and other groups
like that.
What if it is all a drama (a bizarre disgusting TV reality show) to keep us (the 99.9999999%)
scared (terrorized) so we allow them to spend more money on arms (including more money for the
NSA) and forget about real issues such as the fact that in the USA the net worth of the 6 children
of Sam Walton is more than that of 50% of us (while our real incomes goes down every day - for
the 95% of us) and in the world 80 people's net worth is more than that of 50% of the world population.
Be afraid, don't think, be very afraid...
That's their mantra!
Gary Paudler 21 Mar 2015 11:18
Not that surprising, when was the last time the Department of Defense did something that wasn't
entirely offensive on some other country's soil?
mikedow -> Delaware 21 Mar 2015 11:15
You can left-click on that pop-up and nuke it if you have Adblocker. I had fun with Rusbridger's
Coal Divestment Promo, by blasting it.
Eric Moller 21 Mar 2015 11:02
Why discuss anything .. The GOP has already shown a willingness to hand the NSA illegal
powers under the table so to speak .. and even if the deadline for section 215 of the ( Benedict
Arnold Act) expires it's not a problem ..
One thing Obama and Congress can agree on is the Continuation of our Tax dollars being spent
on our Government spying on us .. The People .. They seem to be in lock step on that illegality
.. Kinda like the Hitler High step ..
Quadspect -> zelazny 21 Mar 2015 11:00
Theoretically, NSA, in all its cyber-omniscience, watched arms smuggling by various governments
into countries with factions that wanted to kill each other, watched the increasing justifiable
fury at being droned and bombed and politically and economically interfered with that caused formation
of terrorist groups --- Hardly an institution bent on protecting the 99 percent. NSA is up
to Something Else Other Than National Security.
zelazny 21 Mar 2015 09:58
The NSA has learned that despite its ability to vacuum up massive amounts of data, it lacks
the intelligence to sort it out and analyze it. Garbage in, garbage out.
Take for example the inability of the GCHQ or the NSA to stop teenagers, including teen age
girls, from attempting, and actually succeeding, in joining ISIS and other groups.
They may have everyone's information, but they can't sort out the "good" guys from the "bad"
guys.
So instead, they will do what the USA always has done -- attack the innocent to make sure they
pose no threat, even if they never would pose a threat.
robtal 21 Mar 2015 09:40
Let the NSA do all the hacking they want if your so out of it you put sensitive stuff anywhere
on a computor your loss.
Eccles -> whatdidyouexpect 21 Mar 2015 09:25
Using the standard US definition of terrorism they have had them for some decades. Using them,
for example, to program missile targets, control drones, communicate, and hack fellow UN diplomats.
Phil Barnett, a VP at mobile device management vendor Good Technology, questioned Clinton's data management practices.
"Personal and highly sensitive corporate data are very different and should be treated as such," Barnett said. "But that's not to
say you can't have them on the same device. The user experience must be high quality to keep data secure – if your corporate security
model is too heavy, people will find a way around it.
"Separating and containerising sensitive data allows one device to do both jobs while balancing usability and security. And the more
sensitive the data, the more critical this approach becomes," he added.
The affair has created issues around using personal vs. government issued e-mail addresses, as well as the preservation requirements
that apply to each case. The incident has also thrown up regulatory, compliance and storage/e-discovery issues.
Mark Noel, a former litigator for Latham & Watkins who went on to co-found an electronic discovery software firm before moving onto
Catalyst Repository System, is more sympathetic to Clinton's DIY email set-up, arguing that there's a good chance that historically
significant data will be recovered one way or another.
"The use of a personal email account doesn't necessarily mean there's any intent to hide things," Noel said. "It's very common for
busy professionals to try to funnel everything into one email account or one device, because multiple devices or accounts are too
much of a pain to deal with and take up way too much time. When the government or corporate system isn't set up to allow that kind
of efficiency, people often craft their own solutions purely for the sake of getting their jobs done."
Emails sent or received by Clinton might still be accessible even if here or her staff either deleted or lost them for any reason.
There are always copies at the other end, the managing director of professional services at Catalyst Repository System pointed out.
"Analysts who are complaining that 'there's no way we can know if there's anything missing' aren't quite right," Noel said. "We do
this all the time in civil litigation and government investigations. Emails tend to leave copies on every server they touch, so even
if a sender doesn't keep a copy of it, the receiver's email system probably did. If Ms. Clinton emailed other government issued accounts,
those emails are very likely preserved – just in a different location."
Gaps in the record might also be revealed via practices common in commercial litigation, according to Noel.
"Additionally, there are other types of analysis, such as 'gap analysis' that can reveal whether email is likely missing, based on
the usual pattern and quantities of email and whether there appear to be 'holes' in the emails that are preserved. These types of
analyses are also quite common in civil litigation and government investigations where it is suspected that someone is intentionally
hiding or deleting evidence," he concluded. ®
From comments:: She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the hackers can invade
gov't websites (wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but very likely that her security was breached.
flatulenceodor67 -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:33
"She was on a secured server and has already confirmed that security was not breached."
What an ASININE statement believing a compulsive/corrupt KNOWN LIAR! I guess it takes one to know one.
Spanawaygal -> J.K. Stevens 14 Mar 2015 12:12
She's not a computer tech and hasn't got a clue as to whether security was breached. If the hackers can invade gov't websites
(wikileaks) and major corporations, it's not only possible but very likely that her security was breached.
"... Usually, employees who decide to engage in shadow IT don't have bad intentions. They do so because what they're getting from
corporate IT isn't good enough: Corporate-issued devices and apps are clunky, enterprise security measures ruin the user experience,
IT is too slow to respond to requests. ..."
"... Battling on another front, CIOs should reach out to shadow IT vendors with an olive branch. While it's reactionary to slam
vendors for bypassing IT, this won't stop them from selling directly to employees. Instead, CIOs should focus on building a relationship
with vendors so that their services can spread throughout the organization on a long-term basis rather than sold to individuals and
business units on an ad hoc basis, Riley says. ..."
"... Even if the political furor over Clinton's private email system subsides and continued debate shows shadow IT as a common practice
-- "Colin Powell, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush used private email" for government business, Riley says -- this doesn't mean there aren't
severe consequences. ..."
"... CIOs hope these fears have lasting effects, at least in the workplace. Clinton proved that she wasn't able to get away with
her personal email system, and the fallout to her career can be great. Her situation should sound a warning to employees about the dangers
of shadow IT. ..."
"... "The message is, if you try to circumvent us, then you're going to cause pain for yourself," Riley says. "But if you work with
us, we're more than willing to give you whatever you need." ..."
"Heavy-handed approaches are not going to eliminate shadow IT, it'll just go farther underground," says Deputy CTO Steve Riley at
Riverbed, an enterprise software vendor. "There's no positive outcome for being a disciplinarian about something like this. You might
end up with services that are even more dangerous, where people now actively seek to circumvent policies."
Usually, employees
who decide to engage in shadow IT don't have bad intentions. They do so because what they're getting from corporate IT isn't good
enough: Corporate-issued devices and apps are clunky, enterprise security measures ruin the user experience, IT is too slow to respond
to requests.
CIOs need to change this perception but not in an antagonistic way. Riley advises CIOs to work with employees in areas where shadow
IT tends to start and spread, such as file sharing and instant messaging. It's easier to rein in data from five services than 30,
Riley says.
Battling on another front, CIOs should reach out to shadow IT vendors with an olive branch. While it's reactionary to slam
vendors for bypassing IT, this won't stop them from selling directly to employees. Instead, CIOs should focus on building a relationship
with vendors so that their services can spread throughout the organization on a long-term basis rather than sold to individuals and
business units on an ad hoc basis, Riley says.
CIOs can use Clinton case as a teachable moment
Ironically, the Clinton case might help CIOs fight against shadow IT by spurring employees to police themselves. Even if the
political furor over Clinton's private email system subsides and continued debate shows shadow IT as a common practice -- "Colin
Powell, Rick Perry and Jeb Bush used private email" for government business, Riley says -- this doesn't mean there aren't severe
consequences.
There will likely be inquiries about whether or not Clinton broke the law. Her reputation as someone to be trusted has been tarnished.
Her peers might think twice about lending their support if she put her political party at risk. If a smoking-gun email surfaces or
a national security breach comes to light, Clinton will be under fire.
CIOs hope these fears have lasting effects, at least in the workplace. Clinton proved that she wasn't able to get away with
her personal email system, and the fallout to her career can be great. Her situation should sound a warning to employees about the
dangers of shadow IT.
"The message is, if you try to circumvent us, then you're going to cause pain for yourself," Riley says. "But if you work
with us, we're more than willing to give you whatever you need."
This case convincingly demonstrates to the world not only that Hillary is an a very weak politician, but also that she is uncapable
to attract decent experts.
The former secretary of state said she had preserved official communications but her office said she 'chose not to keep her private,
personal emails'
Hillary Clinton failed to quell mounting criticism over her controversial private email account on Tuesday evening after her office
suggested she had erased more than half of her emails before turning them over for release to the American public.
In a statement released after a press conference intended to end a week-long controversy, Clinton's office said that she did not
preserve 31,830 of the 62,320 emails she sent and received while serving as Barack Obama's secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
"After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Secretary Clinton chose not to keep her private, personal emails that
were not federal records," her office said, in a defiant nine-page explanation for the unusual arrangement that has put her under
political fire.
Republicans accused Clinton of blocking transparency. It could not be confirmed whether the deleted archives included messages sent
and received by Clinton relating to her family's philanthropic foundation. Donations to the foundation by foreign governments and
corporations are the subject of a separate ongoing controversy.
The continuing saga threatened to complicate the plans for her expected second campaign for the US presidency, which were thought
to be in their final stages in advance of an announcement in April.
Criticism has grown since it was revealed last week that Clinton did not use an official government email address during her four
years at the State Department. She instead conducted all official business using a private address under the ClintonEmail.com domain.
Clinton conceded at a press conference in New York on Tuesday afternoon that she had erred and "it would have been better" to have
used separate email accounts for work and personal matters. However, she insisted she had used a single account on one mobile phone
for "convenience", adding: "I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."
The former secretary's office said she had turned over all 30,490 of her sent and received emails that related to her work to the
State Department. They manually searched her archive, the statement said, first by finding all emails involving people with government
email addresses, then searching for some people by name and for topics such as Libya.
All these are expected to be published. "You will see everything from the work of government, to emails with State and other administration
colleagues, to LinkedIn invites, to talk about the weather – essentially what anyone would see in their own email account," her office
said.
In further defiant remarks on the emails that Clinton will not turn over, her office insisted that none contained material relevant
to her work in four years leading Foggy Bottom.
"These were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter's wedding plans, her mother's funeral services, and condolence
notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account,
such as offers from retailers, spam, etc," it said.
But the Republican party, which accused Clinton of "putting our national security at risk for 'convenience'" by operating the private
email server, said there could be no independent verification that Clinton had preserved all messages related to her work.
"Because only Hillary Clinton controls her personal email account and admitted she deleted many of her emails, no one but Hillary
Clinton knows if she handed over every relevant email," Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in
a statement.
Clinton rejected suggestions that an independent monitor could review her email server to examine emails not turned over. "I believe
that I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private," she said at the press conference.
Despite separately indicating all personal messages were erased, she said the server "contains personal communications from my husband
and me". Clinton's spokesman did not respond to an email seeking clarification on what precisely had been erased.
Other critics pointed to remarks made by Clinton at an onstage interview last month, in which she said she used both an iPhone and
a Blackberry. Discussing devices later in the conversation, Clinton said, "I don't throw anything away, I'm like two steps short
of a hoarder." It was not clear when Clinton began using two devices.
The statement from Clinton's office addressed other questions raised by the news of her email server – several relating to security
and her interaction with foreign governments. The statement said her team's review of Clinton's email archive "revealed only one
email with a foreign (UK) official". It clarified that "during her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person,
through correspondence, and by telephone".
Clinton said during her press conference that she had never used the email account to send classified material. She insisted that
the server had been secure by being placed on property protected by the secret service and claimed to know that the system had never
been breached.
"... Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what government agencies are doing with their computer security? ..."
"... And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely. ..."
"... I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't her communications be part of that process? ..."
"... The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted to. ..."
"... Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman Polanski's The Ghost). ..."
"... Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives. ..."
"... The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS! ..."
"... Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always knew she was. ..."
"... It is not her decision to create her own web accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability or transparency. ..."
"... Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook? ..."
"... The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour. ..."
"... The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse. ..."
"... Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not, then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence or complicity in this deception. ..."
"... "Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the public arena ..."
"... Not having encryption (google smtps), which is easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign. ..."
"... If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise. ..."
"... People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for doing the EXACT SAME THING. ..."
"... The ruling elite plays by their own rules. ..."
"... Actually, the rules were there before. ..."
"... It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. ..."
Questions, questions. Doesn't the FBI, NSA, or some part of Homeland Security vet what
government agencies are doing with their computer security? Wouldn't that have turned up
Hillary's private scheme? And how could Obama not know about this, unless he never exchanged
e-mail with Hillary, which seems unlikely.
kgb999again -> BeckyP
Hillary Clinton was not serving as a politician. She was serving as a high official in a non-elected
office of the U.S. Government. She is required by law to maintain accessible records within the
government of every meeting and communication she conducted - for both accountability and historic
legacy reasons.
If she wanted to behave as a politician, she shouldn't have accepted the role of Secretary
of State.
macktan894
The basic question is still: why would she do such a thing? Why would she insist that all her
email and that of her principal staff be handled by this private server?
And I guess I would also wonder how this could go undetected and unscrutinized for so long?
Why would not anyone receiving email from the Clinton people wonder why they were getting email
from an account that was non government in its address?
I also wonder why Kerry would not question the absence of Clinton's correspondence when
he took office? Doesn't he, as the successor, have to establish a historical record? Wouldn't
her communications be part of that process?
I recall when Obama won the nomination in 2008, he had a meeting with Clinton re her appt to
sec of state. He was surprised when she turned up with a "contract" that listed items she needed
him to agree to if she were to join his administration. Was this server business in that contract?
Why do I have these questions but reporters do not?
thegradycole -> macktan894
Why does anybody do it? Jeb Bush used a personal server while he was governor of Florida and
then handed over 275,000 emails, of course just like Clinton he didn't release those that he determined
were of a personal nature. Kerry is the first SOS to use the official .gov server.
The main focus of the controversy comes because she could have deleted any emails she wanted
to. But I always thought that nothing could really be deleted. If they have the server don't
they have everything?
This whole thing better be more than the usual it-looks-bad-but-we-can't-find-anything. It
gets to the point where the appearance of impropriety becomes a conspiracy, they add "gate" to
it and it has a life of its own. If there's something there let's see it. Scott Walker and Chris
Christie have similar problems as their emails are part of criminal investigations.
Funny, we're back to paper as the only secure way to communicate anything (as in Roman
Polanski's The Ghost).
BradBenson -> chiefwiley 8 Mar 2015 06:48
Well yes, in theory. In actual practice Freedom of Information Requests were always treated
with disdain by the agencies. Since I left Government in 1999, it has gotten much worse.
You are absolutely correct that she should not be mixing official and private business or the
servers, which carry them. All of her official correspondence should have been retained in a Government
Server.
Despite the fact that digital record keeping continues to advance, the record keeping requirements
go back to the early 50's and there is simply no reason that she should now be in possession of
these records instead of either the State Department or the National Archives.
FloodZilla 8 Mar 2015 06:43
The fact that she has criminally violated at least a dozen US Federal laws has nothing to do
with the fact that she is lower than pond scum. God help us if she gets elected to POTUS!
Anne Vincent 8 Mar 2015 03:19
If she was too insecure to utilize the US Government's own computer system, then she is too
insecure to reside in the White House or to work as a US Government official. She needs to "move
on".
Her dishonesty and corruption already have been well documented for many decades, and she
has proven that despite all her "image makeovers", she is the same untrustworthy person we always
knew she was.
David Egan 7 Mar 2015 22:34
Mayer added that speculation that Clinton had created a "homebrew" internet system was "plainly
inaccurate", at least when talking about the current configuration of the service.
Newsflash!!! Hillary had no business, legal or otherwise, to create her own network!!
This way she has total control over the e-mails that she wants to make public.... GET IT.....??
David Egan -> anthonylaino 7 Mar 2015 22:28
I agree!!! The elitist one percent have made billions and knowingly sent tens of thousands
of people to their deaths, just for a buck (ok, well, lots of bucks) and to further their jack
boot on the throat of the average citizen from any country...
Financial Bondage For Everyone!!!!
Zooni_Bubba 7 Mar 2015 20:58
Maybe Clinton had security and maybe she didn't. It is not her decision to create her own web
accounts to avoid public scrutiny. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington. No accountability
or transparency. When someone under investigation gets to decide what to supply, they not the
authorities control the evidence.
Stephen_Sean 7 Mar 2015 20:25
Bottom line if official State Department business was being routed through a personal email
system she needs to go down for it. I work a mundane middle class job as a data analyst and my
employer would be furious and fire me instantly if I routed work related emails and attachments
through my personal email so why should Hillary get off the hook?
Dems better start looking for an alternative. Hillary isn't the one you want answering the
phone at 3am.
Trixr -> Miles Long 7 Mar 2015 19:54
From a technical point of view, saying it's a 'high security' system is cobblers. Anti malware
is the LEAST you can do for email security in a corporate system. Having a domain registered in
one location and traffic coming from another means absolutely nothing in these days of shared
hosting and dynamically-provisioned server farms. No-one puts their personal details on a WHOIS
these days. I don't, and I just have a dinky little personal domain.
The fact that the email traffic isn't encrypted makes this strictly amateur hour.
The fact that the email isn't immediately controlled and discoverable by the govt is appalling
enough. The fact it's apparently secured using small business standards just makes it worse.
And this 'expert' is an idiot, or not giving the full story.
John Hemphill -> imipak 7 Mar 2015 19:12
Just curious if know by chance, how did the State Department do in their last couple ot FISMA
audits ?
Was there any footnotes or exceptions noted concerning use of a private email server ? If not,
then we should get our money back from auditing contractor. If they didn't discover and report
it as an exception, then they should be barred from federal contracting for gross incompetence
or complicity in this deception.
ElmerFuddJr -> MakeBeerNotWar 7 Mar 2015 18:37
"Dick Cheney in a pantsuit" is gonna live forever, or at least as long as she remains in the
public arena.!.
MakeBeerNotWar -> ElmerFuddJr 7 Mar 2015 18:48
- yes but one risks the label of misogynist by her many followers. Cheney is a true psychopath
tho and Clinton could reach being one thus why the Dems who really care about our country need
to find an alternate candidate so HRC will not be given the chance to start another idiotic
fraud war that benefits Wall $t, I$rael and the MIC.
GuardianIsBiased127
What a bunch of liberal spin by ABC. I've run mail servers for 20 years. Scanning for viruses
etc is trivial and every email provider does it. Not having encryption (google smtps), which is
easily determined if the mail server is still running, is a very bad sign.
macktan894 -> GuardianIsBiased127
Agree. Saying that her system scanned for viruses and was therefore "secure" is a laugh. My
computer scans for viruses, too, as do most computers. We all know that does not equate with topnotch
security. I also use an Apple. Still, the NSA or any other cyberterrorist can easily hijack my
computer if that's the goal.
ludaludaluda
"internap" is not a good company by any measure -- my company has been a client for years.
If Clinton is using Internap right now, that should be the subject of ridicule, not praise.
bbuckley
Look, let's be clear. People lost their jobs when Hillary was in charge over there for
doing the EXACT SAME THING.
Where's the email that has Hillary wanting these poor people being brought back to work. Hillary
has in the past spoken of the danger of using a private domain.
This is once again the rules don't apply to Clintons. And I'm going to tell Ya all something:
the investigators will be going to gmail, or yahoo, or whoever, and making 100% sure they get
it all. I truly do not care for this woman. I find her to be a shifty giant egoed elitist. However,
I'm not ready to yell guilty. Decency and fair play require that I see the pudding before I declare
the truth. But, she damn well knew the rules, so why hide the emails? It won't be a mystery lover,
that's for sure. She didn't want them seen, there's gotta be a reason for that.
Danish5666
The ruling elite plays by their own rules.
Kelly Kearns -> Miles Long
Actually, the rules were there before.
12 FAM 544.2 Automated Information System (AIS)
Processing and Transmission
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
"12 FAM 544.3 Electronic Transmission Via the Internet
(CT:DS-117; 11-04-2005)
a. It is the Department's general policy that normal day-to-day operations be
conducted on an authorized AIS, which has the proper level of security control
to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information. The
Department's authorized telework solution(s) are designed in a manner that
meet these requirements and are not considered end points outside of the
Department's management control. "
Quotes: ...Indeed, Clinton herself was once worked up about this very issue. "We know about the
secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back
then. ...So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule
of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive. ...This has the distinct odor of hogwash.
First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't
have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception.
Notable quotes:
"... "We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then. ..."
"... the email domain clintonemail.com that she appears to have been using was created on Jan. 13, 2009, the very day Clinton's confirmation hearings began. ..."
"... So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive. ..."
"... First, the basic rule that government business is to be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception. ..."
"... What is the legitimate reason for conducting official business on a personal back-channel? Why, if not for purposes of secrecy, would Clinton choose to operate that way? ..."
Hillary Clinton may not have a serious opponent for the Democratic nomination – except herself.
The Clintons' unfortunate tendency to be their own worst enemy is on display, again, with reports
that, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton conducted official business solely from a personal email
account.
This is a problem – and not only because it presents a particularly unflattering contrast with
the move by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to release a flood of official emails. It illustrates Clinton's
reflexive impulse to secrecy over transparency, a tendency no doubt bolstered by the bruising experience
of her White House years, yet one that she would be well advised to resist rather than indulge.
Indeed, Clinton herself was once worked up about this very issue. "We know about the secret
wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts," she said back then.
So what to make of the revelation that Clinton avoided official email entirely while at State?
This had to be a deliberate decision. After all, the issue of the Bush emails was still in the news.
And, as The Washington Post's Philip Bump reports, the email domain clintonemail.com that
she appears to have been using was created on Jan. 13, 2009, the very day Clinton's confirmation
hearings began.
To back up: The Federal Records Act requires agencies to maintain records of official business,
including emails. The National Archives, which oversees such collection, had this to say in 2013
about the use of personal email accounts:
"While agency employees should not generally use personal email accounts to conduct official
agency business, there may be times when agencies authorize the use of personal email accounts,
such as in emergency situations when federal accounts are not accessible or when an employee is
initially contacted through a personal account. In these situations, agency employees must ensure
that all federal records sent or received on personal email systems are captured and managed in
accordance with agency recordkeeping practices."
Italics mine.
So far, the explanation from Clintonworld about the failure to comply with this basic rule
of modern archiving has been inadequate and unpersuasive.
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill "declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department
business from her personal account," reported The New York Times, which broke the story.
This has the distinct odor of hogwash. First, the basic rule that government business is to
be transacted from government accounts doesn't have a well-we'll-capture-it-anyway exception.
Second, the government records to be retained aren't only intra-agency communications. If Clinton
is emailing with world leaders or others about official business, the entire point of the Federal
Records Act is to ensure that those communications are captured for history.
This should have been clear. Certainly, the intersection of email and federal records law has
been evolving. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell writes about his effort to use "the then-newfangled
email system" to communicate with counterparts overseas. His successor, Condoleezza Rice, rarely
used email to transact business but employed her government address when she did.
What is the legitimate reason for conducting official business on a personal back-channel?
Why, if not for purposes of secrecy, would Clinton choose to operate that way?
That Clinton has recently turned over 55,000 pages of email records in response to an overdue
burst of documentary housekeeping by State does not excuse her lack of compliance while in office.
That her proto-campaign describes her activities as complying with "both the letter and spirit"
of the rules would be jaw-dropping, if it weren't so sadly familiar.
We may need a new metaphor to describe the situation Clinton faces now.
See also
Hillary Clinton, too cautious for her own good Her secretive ways with official e-mail
repeats the same mistake she has made for nearly a quarter-century. Dana Milbank | Opinions |
Mar 6, 2015
House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe. A House committee investigating
the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state -
and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home. Associated
Press | Technology | Mar 5, 2015
House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Benghazi probe. A House committee investigating
the Benghazi, Libya, attacks issued subpoenas Wednesday for the emails of Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state -
and also used a computer email server now traced back to her family's New York home. Associated
Press | Technology | Mar 4, 2015
White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy. Hillary Clinton's official e-mail
habits once again draw attention to her penchant for secrecy - a trait that has created political
problems since her years as first lady.
The Internet and our digital media are quietly becoming a pervasive and manipulative interactive
surveillance system. Leading U.S. online companies, while claiming to be strong supporters of
an open and democratic Internet, are working behind the scenes to ensure that they have unlimited and
unchecked power to "shadow" each of us online. They have allied with global advertisers to transform
the Internet into a medium whose true ambition is to track, influence and sell, in anever-ending
cycle, their products and political ideas. While Google, Facebook and other digital giants
claim to strongly support a "democratic" Internet, their real goal is to use all the
"screens"we use to empower a highly commercialized and corporatized digital media culture.
Last Thursday was widely viewed as a victory for "Internet Freedom" and a blow to a "corporatized"
Internet as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) endorsed a historic public utility framework
for Network Neutrality (NN). It took the intervention of President Obama last year, who
called for "the strongest possible rules to
protect net neutrality," to dramatically transform the FCC's plans. Its chairman, Thomas Wheeler, a
former cable and telecom lobbyist, had previously been ambivalent about endorsing strong utility-like
regulations. But feeling the pressure, especially from the president, he became a "born again" NN champion,
leading the agency to
endorse
"strong, sustainable rules to protect the Open Internet."
But the next day, the Obama White House took another approach to Internet Freedom, handing
the leading online companies, including Google, Facebook, and their Fortune-type advertising clients,
a major political victory. The administration released its long-awaited "Consumer
Privacy Bill of Rights" legislation. The bill enables the most powerful corporations and their
trade associations to greatly determine what American privacy rights will be. By giving further control
over how data are gathered and used online, the administration basically ceded more clout to a corporate
elite that will be able to effectively decide how the Internet and digital applications operate, today
and in the near future.
How do privacy rules impact the openness of the Internet, and the ability to promote and sustain
progressive and alternative perspectives? While much of the public debate on pervasive data mining
has focused on the role of the NSA and other intelligence agencies that were exposed by Edward Snowden,
there has not been as much discussion on the impact of the commercial data system that is at the core
of the Internet today. Google, Facebook, and others use our data as the basis of an ever-expanding
global system of commercial surveillance. This information is gathered from our mobile devices, PCs,
apps, social networks, and increasingly even TVs-and stored in digital profiles. These far-reaching
dossiers-which can be accessed and updated in milliseconds-can include information on our race/ethnicity,
financial status, health concerns, location, online behavior, what our children do, whom we communicate
with on social media, and much more.
The major online companies are continually expanding their commercial data gathering practices.
They now merge and use our online and offline data (what we do online and information collected from
store loyalty cards, etc.); track us across all the devices we use (PCs, mobile, etc.); and amass even
more data about us supplied by a vast network of
data broker alliances and partnerships (such asFacebook
with its myriad of data partners, including Acxiom and Epsilon). A U.S. digital data industry
"arms race," with companies vying to own the most complete set of records on every consumer, has also
led to a
wave of mergers and acquisitions, where companies that have already compiled huge datasets on Americans
(and global consumers) being swallowed up by even larger ones.
Leading corporations are investing vast sums to harvest and, in their own words, make "actionable"
information we now generate nearly 24/7. So-called "Big Data" technologies enable companies to quickly
analyze and take advantage of all this information, including understanding how each of us uses online
media and mobile phones. A score of "Math Men and Women"-led advertising-technology companies have
pioneered the use of super fast computers that track where we are online and, in milliseconds, crunch
through lots of our data to decide whether to target us with advertising and marketing (regardless
of whether we use a PC or mobile device and, increasingly, using our geolocation information).
These machines are used to "auction" us off individually to the highest bidder, so we can be instantly
delivered some form of marketing (or even political) message. Increasingly, the largest brands and
ad agencies are using all this data and new tactics to sell us junk food, insurance, cars, and political
candidates. For example, these anonymous machines can determine whether to offer us a high-interest
pay day loan or a lower interest credit card; or an ad from one political group versus another.
But it's not just the ability to harvest data that's the source of increased corporate clout on
the Internet. Our profiles are tied to a system of micro-persuasion, the 21st century updating of traditional
"Madison Avenue" advertising tactics that relied on "subliminal" and cultural influence. Today,
online ads are constructed by connecting our information to a highly sophisticated digital marketing
apparatus. At places like Google's
BrandLab, AT&T's
Adworks Lab, or through research efforts such as
Facebook IQ, leading companies help their well-heeled clients
take advantage of the latest insights from neuromarketing
(to deliberately influence our emotions and subconscious), social media
monitoring, new forms of corporate product
placement, and the most effective
ways to use all of our digital platforms.
The online marketing industry is helping determine the dimensions of our digital world. Much
of the Internet and our mobile communications are being purposely developed as a highly commercialized
marketplace, where the revenues that help fund content go to a select, and largely ad-supported, few.
With Google, Facebook, major advertisers and agencies all working closely together throughout the world
to further commercialize our relationship to digital media, and given their ownership over the leading
search engines, social networks, online video channels, and how "monetization" of content operates,
these forces pose a serious obstacle to a more democratic and diverse online environment.
One of the few barriers standing in the way of their digital dominance is the growing public
concern about our commercial
privacy. U.S. companies have largely bitterly opposed proposed privacy legislation-in the U.S. and
also in the
European
Union (where data protection, as it is called, is considered a
fundamental right).
Effective regulations for privacy in the U.S. would restore our control of the information that has
been collected about us, versus the system now in place that, for the most part, enables companies
to freely use it. But under the proposed Obama plan, Google, Facebook and other data-gathering
companies would be allowed to determine the rules. Through a scheme the White House calls a "multi-stakeholder"
process, industry-dominated meetings-with consumer and privacy groups vastly outnumbered and out-resourced-would
develop so-called self-regulatory "codes of conduct" to govern how the U.S. treats data collection
and privacy. Codes would be developed to address, for example, how companies can track and use our
location information; how they compile dossiers about us based on what we do at the local grocery store
and read online; how health data can be collected and used from devices like Fitbit; and more. This
process is designed to protect the bottom line of the data companies, which the Obama White House views
as important to the economy and job growth. (Stealing other people's data, in other words, is one of
America's most successful industries). Like similar self-regulatory efforts, stakeholder codes are
really designed to sanction existing business practices and enable companies to continue to accumulate
and use vast data assets unencumbered. The administration claims that such a stakeholder process can
operate more effectively than legislation, operating quickly in "Internet time." Dominated by
industry
as they are, stakeholder bodies are incapable of doing anything that would adversely impact their own
future-which currently depends on the ability to gather and use all our data.
The administration's bill also strips away the power of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which
now acts as the leading federal watchdog on privacy. Instead of empowering the FTC to develop national
rules that enable individuals to make their own privacy decisions, the bill forces the agency to quickly
review (in as little as 90 days) the proposed stakeholder codes-with little effective power to reject
them. Companies become largely immune to FTC oversight and enforcement when they agree to abide by
the self-regulatory policies their lobbyists basically wrote. In a rare rebuke to the administration,
the
FTC, leading Congressional
Democrats, and the majority of consumer and
privacy organizations rejected the White House's privacy plan. But the administration does not
appear to be willing, for now, to change its support for the data companies; and as we know, Silicon
Valley and their business allies have strong support in Congress that will prevent any privacy law
from passing for now.
To see how the online lobby has different views on Internet Freedom, compare, for example the statements
of the "Internet Association"-the lobbying trade organization that
represents Google, Facebook, Amazon and dozens
of other major online data-gathering companies-on last week's two developments. It
praised the FCC NN decision for creating
"strong, enforceable net neutrality rules … banning paid prioritization, blocking, and discrimination
online." But the group rejected the
Administration's privacy proposal, as weak as it was, explaining that "today's wide-ranging legislative
proposal outlined by the Commerce Department casts a needlessly imprecise net." At stake, as the Internet
Association knows, is the ability of its members to expand their businesses throughout the world unencumbered.
For example, high on the agenda for the Internet Association
members are new U.S. brokered
global trade deals, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which will free
our digital giants from having to worry about strong privacy laws abroad.
While the NN battle correctly viewed Comcast, Verizon, and other cable and phone giants as major
opponents to a more democratic digital media environment, many of the online companies were seen as
supporters and allies. But an "open" network free from control of our cable/telco monopolies is just
one essential part for a more diverse and public interest-minded online system. Freedom must also prevent
powerful interests from determining the very structure of communications in the digital age. Those
companies that can collect and most effectively use our information are also gatekeepers and shapers
of our Internet Future.
The NN victory is only one key step for a public-interest agenda for digital media. We also must
place limits on today's digital media conglomerates, especially their ability to use all our data.
The U.S is one of the only "developed" countries that still
doesn't
have a national law protecting our privacy. For those concerned about the environment, we must
also address how U.S. companies are using the Internet to encourage the
global public to engage in a never-ending
consumption spree that has consequences for sustainability and a more equitable future.
There is ultimately an alignment of interests between the so-called "old" media of cable and the
telephone industry with the "new" online media. They share similar values when it comes to ensuring
the media they control brings eyeballs and our bank accounts to serve them and their advertising clients.
While progressive and public interest voices today find the Internet accessible for organizing and
promoting alternative views, to keep it so will require much more work.
Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (
www.democraticmedia.org).
The BYOD trend (bring your own device): There's no use debating it. It's here to stay. And it'll get worse before it gets better.
You need to stop fighting it. Here's why.
BYOD has plagued IT departments since the 1970s. Annoyance at the dawn of BYOD seems quaint when you consider the problems it
causes today.
BYOD makes IT's work more difficult, creates security and privacy liabilities and potentially causes a wide range of problems
and risks for IT systems management-in fact, for the company as a whole.
Advice for fixing or preventing these BYOD problems is beyond the scope of this post. But I will say this: Doing nothing about
BYOD is crazy talk.
Get Used To It
The reason BYOD is here to stay is psychological. It's less about technology and more about culture-or even anthropology. It's
about a belief of what is "me" and what is "not me."
In the old days, the kinds of devices that could be connected inside the firewall were tools or office equipment.
Today, smartphones-and to a lesser extent, tablets and other devices-aren't categorizable as tools, but instead are part
of the employee.
When you hire an employee, you're nowadays hiring an augmented human. There are things required for work that the employee
pays for, and that enhance that employee's mind and body. They are associated with that employee's personal self-identity.
... ... ...
For many employees, smartphones are part of their brains, and also part of their identities. Even the simple act of scanning these
devices for viruses feels to some employees like an outrageous violation of privacy. That will not change in our lifetimes.
What will change is that even more personal and more problematic BYOD gadgets will be flooding into the office, and soon.
... ... ...
It's also important to remember that, even as technology advances, the biggest threat remains the lowest-tech threats, such as
USB thumb drives and, most of all, employees themselves.
The strongest policy and the strongest password is useless if an employee is socially engineered into giving it away.
The Bottom Line
At the highest level, there are three important things to know about BYOD.
It's here to stay and will grow.
The potential risks are real, so require mitigation.
There is a great deal of talk about Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and a lot of statistics suggesting that it is a huge phenomenon
taking place across the corporate world. Redshift Research, in a report it delivered for Cisco, tells us that "95 percent of organizations
allow employee-owned devices in some way, shape or form in the workplace" with 84 percent of these saying that they provide support
for these devices.
However, most instances of BYOD currently relate to people's use of their own smartphones to connect to the Internet or email
to access company documents. Five years ago people simply had two
mobile phones – one
personal and one issued by work. Today, these two devices have merged into one.
However, remote access to office files using personal devices is not really the issue. What has really got IT decision-makers
excited is their increasing difficulty to be able to track company data and understand what is happening to it outside of the enterprise
environment.
BYOD is not the problem, cloud storage is. It is now very simple for employees to store documents, for free, using any number
of file storage providers such as Dropbox or
Google
drive. There is also an increasing number of applications that can be downloaded that help with office work. Where data is stored
and how securely within these applications is often a mystery. In either case, once out of the enterprise IT environment it becomes
impossible for CIOs to know where company data is or who has access to it.
However, it is not just technology, but rather the changing relationship we are having with it as a society that is the real driver
of change. For the first time, IT decision-makers are no longer in charge of how IT is used in organizations.
Very quickly, we have all got used to being able to easily choose from a limitless supply of applications in our personal lives,
all at little or no cost. This is the antithesis to the corporate environment, which has deployed software and services in a top-down
and inflexible manner, giving employees little or no choice. This new and growing consumer-based culture allows for IT services to
grow organically to meet the ever-changing demands of the enterprise. So on one level this is all very good news. However, the result
is that those entrusted with responsibility for IT have a growing lack of control over data and how it is used.
The fact is, IT departments are never going to be able to compete with the simplicity and ease-of-use that comes from having an
instantly downloadable application. This needs to be accepted by enterprise organizations at the earliest possible opportunity as
it is only in doing so that they will be able to change their own worldview and work with the new consumer-led culture of IT deployment
that is growing at an ever-increasing pace.
I expect to see an explosion in enterprise-grade applications in the next 18 months as the market recognizes the growth in demand
from enterprise organizations and IT decision-makers recognize that they need to give their staff a choice of technology within controlled
environments.
We could well see, for example, enterprises partnering with third-party app stores that only allow applications that keep data
in a recognized and controlled environment. Employees will benefit from having access to a shopping cart of applications to choose
from and IT departments will know that they have tight service level agreements with providers detailing required security and data
locations. Developers will have clear instructions as to what data security and other hoops that they need to jump through to have
access to the market created by the third-party app provider. This is just one possible outcome of many in what is a rapidly changing
and volatile market.
Such paradigm shifts will not be an easy process for many organizations. Staff will still complain that the tools they really
want to use sit outside any secure environment and will be tempted to use them. The trick will be to have both sticks and carrots
- firm and enforceable data control policies and a never-ending search for the best range of applications to meet changing demands.
Cloud computing has been spoken of as the most revolutionary thing to happen in IT for a generation. However, this is only true
for the IT department. The most visible revolution is just around the corner as employees take full control of how they use technology
to meet their daily needs in work. BYOD smartphones are just the tip of the iceberg.
About the Author: Simon Bain is the founder and CTO of Simplexo Ltd's software solutions
Anyone who has ever worked in a large corporation has seen the empty suits that seem to inexplicably rise to positions of
power. They talk a great game, possessing extraordinary verbal acuity, and often with an amazing ability to rise quickly without significant
accomplishments to positions of great personal power, and often using it ruthlessly once it is achieved.
Their ruthless obsession with power and its visible rewards rises above the general level of narcissism and sycophancy that often
plagues large organizations, especially those with an established franchise where performance is not as much of an issue as collecting
their rents.
And anyone who has been on the inside of the national political process knows this is certainly nothing exclusive to the corporate
world.
Anyone who has ever worked in a large corporation has seen the empty suits that seem to inexplicably rise to positions
of power. They talk a great game, possessing extraordinary verbal acuity, and often with an amazing ability to rise quickly without
significant accomplishments to positions of great ards rises above the general level of narcissism and sycophancy that often plagues
large organizations, especially those with an established franchise where performance is not as much of an issue as collecting
their rents.
And anyone who has been on the inside of the national political process knows this is certainly nothing exclusive to the corporate
world.
But it raises a very important subject. Organizational theories such as the efficient markets hypothesis that assume rational
behavior on the part of market participants tends to fall apart in the presence of the irrational and selfish short term focus of
a significant minority of people who seek power, much less the top one percent of the psychologically ruthless.
Indeed, not only was previously unheard of behavior allowed, it became quite fashionable and desired in certain sections of American
management where ruthless pursuit of profits at any cost was highly prized and rewarded. And if caught, well, only the little people
must pay for their transgressions. The glass ceiling becomes a floor above which the ordinary rules do not apply.
If you wish to determine the character of a generation or a people, look to their heroes, leaders, and role models.
This is nothing new, but a lesson from history that has been unlearned. The entire system of checks and balances, of rule of law,
of transparency in government, of accountability and personal honor, is based on the premise that one cannot always count on people
to be naturally good and self-effacing. And further, that at times it seems that a relatively small group of corrupt people can rise
to power, and harm the very fabric of a society.
'When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.'
Edmund Burke
'And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters
get control. History has proven that.'
Lord Acton
These things tend to go in cycles. It will be interesting to see how this line of analysis progresses. I am sure we all have a few
candidates we would like to submit for testing. No one is perfect or even perfectly average. But systems that assume as much are
more dangerous than standing armies, since like finds like, and dishonesty and fraud can become epidemic in an organization and a
corporate culture, finally undermining the very law and principle of stewardship itself.
'Our government...teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.'
Louis D. Brandeis
MF Global, and the reaction to it thus far, is one of the better examples of shocking behaviour that lately seems to be tolerated,
ignored, and all too often met with weak excuses and lame promises to do better next time, while continuing on as before.
"These corporate collapses have gathered pace in recent years, especially in the western world, and have culminated in the Global
Financial Crisis that we are now in.
In watching these events unfold it often appears that the senior directors involved walk
away with a clean conscience and huge amounts of money. Further, they seem to be unaffected by the corporate collapses they have
created. They present themselves as glibly unbothered by the chaos around them, unconcerned about those who have lost their jobs,
savings, and investments, and as lacking any regrets about what they have done.
They cheerfully lie about their involvement in events are very persuasive in blaming others for what has happened and have
no doubts about their own continued worth and value. They are happy to walk away from the economic disaster that they have managed
to bring about, with huge payoffs and with new roles advising governments how to prevent such economic disasters.
Many of these people display several of the characteristics of psychopaths and some of them are undoubtedly true psychopaths.
Psychopaths are the 1% of people who have no conscience or empathy and who do not care for anyone other than themselves.
Some psychopaths are violent and end up in jail, others forge careers in corporations. The latter group who forge successful
corporate careers is called Corporate Psychopaths...
Psychologists have argued that Corporate Psychopaths within organizations may be singled out for
rapid promotion because of their polish, charm, and cool decisiveness. Expert commentators on the rise of Corporate
Psychopaths within modern corporations have also hypothesized that they are more likely to be found
at the top of current organisations than at the bottom.
Further, that if this is the case, then this phenomenon will have dire consequences for the organisations concerned and for
the societies in which those organisations are based. Since this prediction of dire consequences was made the Global Financial
Crisis has come about.
Research by Babiak and Hare in the USA, Board and Fritzon in the UK and in Australia has shown that psychopaths are indeed
to be found at greater levels of incidence at senior levels of organisations than they are at junior levels (Boddy et al., 2010a).
There is also some evidence that they may tend to join some types of organisations rather than others
and that, for example, large financial organisations may be attractive to them because of the potential rewards on offer in these
organizations."
Clive R. Boddy, The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis,
Journal of Business Ethics,
2011
The loss of competitive advantage from IT may not be entirely due to its commoditization. It is starting to become clear that
at least some of the responsibility lies with business activities taking place outside of the control of IT. Today, business users
and knowledge-workers create and modify their IT infrastructures using "plug-and-play" IT products. These commodity IT products are
now so easy to use, cheap, and powerful that business users themselves can and do perform much of the work traditionally done by
IT.
But without the planning and wider view into the ramifications of their actions provided by IT this often results in disastrous
consequences. Forrester Research found 73% of respondents reported incidents and outages due to unplanned infrastructure modifications.
Welcome to the gritty reality of commodity IT. Aside from the opportunity costs and operational losses resulting from this uncontrolled
plug-and-play free-for-all, many companies are missing out on the competitive advantage potential that harnessing commodity IT delivers.
Within this disturbing new reality lie both the seeds of competitive advantage and a viable model for 21st century IT. In the
Summer 2006 issue of MIT Sloan Management Review , I proposed in "Finishing Off IT" that even though IT is now a commodity it can
and does enable significant competitive advantage. Resource dependency creates complex relationships between consumers and providers.
Post a comment Email Article Print Article Share Articles Digg DZone Reddit Slashdot StumbleUpon del.icio.us Facebook FriendFeed
FurlThese interdependent relationships in turn produce organizational problems that require organizational solutions. Offered as
a solution was the notion that management and organizational structure, not technology, hold the promise of sustainable competitive
advantage from IT, and that manufacturing process control techniques hold a viable model for the future of IT.
21st Century IT
To visualize how a 21st century IT organization could look, it helps to consider the production and consumption of IT services
as a manufacturing micro-economy.
IT manufactures information processing, communication, and collaboration products that underpin nearly all business operations.
Knowledge-workers consume these IT products in pursuit of business objectives using everything from simple emails to more complicated
core activities like forecasts and audits.
A deeper exploration of what actually occurs within the IT micro-economy helps to further clarify the issue. Based on real events
I documented between December 2005 and July 2006, the following dramatization presents a composite of the experiences reported by
a number of mid-to-senior IT managers.
On the way to the office your Blackberry vibrates. It's a message from your staff. Users on the east side have been tech-swapping
again. You know how it goes: "I'll trade you this color printer for your wide screen monitor." You know this is going to raise flags
with the auditors.
You get to your office and there is a note from the service desk about that system outage on the west side. It turns out the system
went down because its users bought some high-resolution scanners and connected them to the system themselves.
You didn't even know they had scanners until they called demanding support.
Downtown, a group of users decided that to improve performance they needed to regularly transfer gigabytes of video from the main
conference room uptown to a storage area network (SAN) they built on their own. As you suspected, these transfers were responsible
for slowing down a business-critical application that has managers all over the company grumbling.
An email from the PMO informs you of a new project that will require extra support staffing starting in two weeks; first you've
heard of that. You look at the calendar and sigh-budget and staff reductions, increasing user counts, more audits, increased legal
regulations, major new and unplanned applications, connectivity and collaboration requirements, and very powerful and unhappy customers
to placate.
So much for delivering the IT projects you did know about on-time and on-budget.
This "bad behavior" by the business amplifies the already accelerating velocity of change facing IT whether in-sourced or out-sourced.
The true nature of today's average IT environment is not pretty, and it's not something most senior executives have fully grasped.
It may also turn out to be a critical factor in obtaining competitive advantage from commodity IT.
Rise of the Knowledge-Worker
Post a comment Email Article Print Article Share Articles Digg DZone Reddit Slashdot StumbleUpon del.icio.us Facebook FriendFeed
FurlIT commoditization changes the balance of power between IT and the business, and within the business itself. Within the IT micro-economy
of plug-and-play commodity IT, the consumer/supplier exchange relationship has shifted. This requires dramatic changes in thinking
and management.
Traditional wisdom holds that the consumer for IT services is a functional business unit-sales, marketing, and so on-but, today,
the real consumers of IT services are ad-hoc teams of knowledge-workers spanning multiple locations, and crossing business unit and
corporate boundaries.
This shift in the exchange relationship has profound implications for the business and IT.
The underlying cause is the unstoppable commoditization of IT as advances accelerate productivity: The ubiquitous availability
of information and internet technology is enabling knowledge-workers to traverse geographic, political boundaries, and now functional
barriers.
Called "Shadow IT," they are the millions of knowledge-workers leaping traditional barriers and asserting themselves in ways that
challenge traditional IT departments.
Knowledge workers perform vital business functions like numerical analysis, reporting, data mining, collaboration, and research.
They use databases, spreadsheets, software, off-the-shelf hardware, and other tools to build and manage sophisticated corporate information
systems outside of the auspices and control of traditional IT.
By creating and modifying IT functionality, knowledge-workers are in effect supplanting the traditional role of corporate IT.
However, they do so in a management and process control vacuum.
While the business can do these things due to the commoditization of IT, few executives ask if they should do them, and fewer
say they must not. Virtually none realize the impact or import. Instead, to the dismay of IT staff, most senior executives and most
CIO's condone virtually any demand the business makes.
This lack of control is responsible for many of the problems associated with IT today.
While the IT center-of-gravity has irrefutably shifted to the knowledge-worker, they do not have the long-term vision or awareness
of dependencies and planning that IT traditionally provides.
The business wonders why IT doesn't get "it" and ponders outsourcing when instead they should be taking responsibility for their
own IT usage. No product IT can buy, and no outsourced IT utility, can handle these and similar issues encountered in ever-increasing
numbers by real IT organizations.
Yet, it is precisely this consumer/supplier shift, increasing dependence upon IT, and the product-oriented nature of commodity
IT that provides companies with the opportunity to leverage it for competitive advantage. However many senior executives have so
far tipped a blind eye to Shadow IT, implicitly condoning the bad behaviors previously described-and they are throwing away any advantage
that IT can provide.
New World Order
This lack of management control over business IT consumption has a tremendous cost. It is partly responsible for loss of the competitive
advantage that IT can and does deliver, and is directly responsible for many lost opportunities, increased costs, and service outages.
Over time the erosion of perceived IT quality usually leads to outsourcing, which is increasingly seen as an incomplete solution
at best, and a disaster at worst.
In order to recover and expand upon the advantages promised by commodity IT, senior executives have to change their concepts of
an IT department, the role of centralized control, and how knowledge workers should contribute. The issue is fundamentally one of
management philosophy.
The Nordstrom way promotes a customer/worker management philosophy where management's first commitment is to the customer. The
customer is always right in the Nordstrom way. This accurately reflects is the hands-off position taken by many senior executive
leaders with regard to out-of-control Shadow IT practices and bad business behavior.
A better management philosophy for commoditized IT is the 'Southwest' way. In the Southwest way, the worker comes first. The customer
is not always right, and Southwest has been know to ask misbehaving customers to fly another airline.
Management's first concern is the worker, because they know that workers following sound processes hold the keys to customer satisfaction,
and in turn, competitive advantage.
Making the Southwest model work for 21st century IT requires a more comprehensive view of what constitutes an IT organization,
a view that extends well past the borders of what most leaders consider IT.
Shifting Demographics
The rising sophistication and expectations of knowledge workers results in divergence in perceived operational goals between IT
and the business-an indicator of task-uncertainty and a key contingency within structural contingency theory.
These changing demographics give new urgency to the need for coordination of knowledge-workers and IT, yet management is trying
to centralize IT spend and control via the CIO role.
Instead of embracing Shadow IT, CIOs are trying to shut it down. Consider instant messaging (IM), an application many knowledge
worker consider critical. IT's approach to IM is reminiscent of the early days of the Internet.
Instead of realizing the job of IT is to support the needs of knowledge-workers, most IT organizations
are trying to stamp out IM-just as they tried to restrict and eliminate Internet access. How will traditional IT respond
to Wikis and blogs as corporate IT tools in the future?
The Corporate Executive Board projects that the percentage of IT spend under central control to grow from 50% in 2002, to 95%
in 2006, but this does not take into account the knowledge-workers of Shadow IT.
A study by Booze Allen Hamilton found that shadow IT personnel equal as much as 80% of the official
IT staff. Clearly, despite the best efforts of senior leaders and IT, the business stubbornly refuses to succumb to centralized IT
control.
The problem with the current direction of the CIO role is that is typically has responsibility to support the business without
authority to control the business; a classic management mistake leading to the aforementioned dilemmas.
The lure of commodity IT is great. Since shadow IT is a direct result of commoditized IT and resource dependency, it also
demonstrates that both corporate IT, and IT utilities, are not delivering the services required by knowledge
workers.
However, most IT leaders do not understand the strategic contingencies within the commoditized IT micro-economy. They don't know
their marketplace, and they don't know who their customer is. In effect, IT is manufacturing the wrong products for the wrong market.
IT doesn't get it either.
As was mentioned in the article, shadow IT exists because the business unit(s) *perceive* that
IT is not meeting their needs. Whether or not that is an accurate perception is meaningless, because it is IT's
fault that the perception exists.
I was part of a "shadow" IT unit at a major oil company that had (and still has) a monolithic IT department. We built systems
in months that would have taken IT the same time just to complete their "JAD" sessions, and one of those projects went on to win
the Microsoft Open competition at Comdex in 1993. Our little "shadow" IT unit changed the way Shell did IT - at least for a while.
The corporate standard was going to be OS/2 - we demonstrated to them that Windows 3.0 was a better solution for the average desktop.
They insisted on buying IBM PS/2's - we proved to them that it was much more economical AND MANAGEABLE to buy less-expensive,
more mainstream units (clones). They insisted on buying IBM 8-bit SNA adapters, while we were purchasing Madge 16-bit SNA adapters
at almost half the price. We also updated their networks for the whole complex.
At the end of our first year of operations, we had saved the company over $1 million in support costs and were rated the highest
support unit in the company.
If you are in IT and have to "deal" with a shadow unit, here's a word of advice. LEARN FROM THEM. They exist for a good reason,
and if you want to take them under your wing, let them teach you what they know. Make friends. Work together. Monolithic IT is
good at moving slowly, so SLOWLY integrate the shadow units and learn from them.
Cool_Breeez
Your assumptions are as much of the problem.
Your description of local IT organizations as "clandestine," ominous," and "illegitimate" are symptoms of an attitude common
among those who work for Central IT organizations. This attitude is often as much or more responsible for the problem as you cast
it than all of the issues cited in this article combined.
The author of this article creates a neat self-fulfilling prophecy by relying on opinions from people who sell their services
to Central IT Managers. Therefore, the perspective is limited to the very narrow interests of IT manager "afflicted" with the
problem of informal IT functions. While security, network administration, and configuration management are critical requirements
of any enterprise, they are most often peripheral to the organization's primary goals. In this context, the Central IT function
becomes a service to the business and IT Staff serviuce providers who must make their services (security for example) relevant
to their "customers." Thus, this article does not address the all too common communications failures of IT groups, the "not invented
here syndrome" that almost defines the notion of Centralized IT, and the common lack of business savvy that dominates corporate
IT.
This is an entirely superficial and incomplete treatment of one of the most costly aspects of modern business.
…groups providing information technology solutions outside of the formal IT organization.
Their existence is due to groups thinking they can do things cheaper and/or better than the formal IT group.Also, it may be
that the formal group can't meet their service requirements or the formal group is forced to develop generic applications in
an attempt to meet the needs of everyone and controlling costs versus customizing applications to meet the needs of business
units.
A few examples:
The IT department of a very large wireless telecom company had very strict guidelines about the types of computers that
were allowed on their network. A policy of this nature is understandable if the business needs of the company are considered
prior to implementing this policy. Engineers, working with their managers, approached IT to ask that a new type of machine
be supported so that they could run their engineering software. The request was denied by IT since they only reviewed new computers
at the end of the Fiscal year. As it turns out, engineers within this company had to buy, install and support an entire 'shadow'
network of computers in order to run the software that they needed to run (the software required very high-performance computers).
When users within an office of a very large contract manufacturing company needed IT support, they were not able to contact
the local IT person who worked with them in the same building, but were required to call a toll-free number that was routed
to an IT helpdesk. The helpdesk would then log a ticket and try to help the user, which invariably didn't resolve the problem.
The user would then be told that the local IT rep would be assigned the ticket. After what was usually at least an hour of
dealing with the outsourced IT staff, the user would finally be allowed to talk to the local IT rep who would then fix their
problem within a few minutes. Eventually, the staff began to ignore the IT helpdesk completely and would resolve their own
problems and would even call in an outside IT support person from the local computer store to fix their problems.
One of the best examples of Shadow IT occurred at one of my previous employers. Our IT department was outsourced to a large
IT firm, who was very responsive to our needs…for the most part. The contract with the IT firm had been negotiated and agreed
to without any input from the actual users or departments that would be supported. Since the group that I managed was a software
support group, we had a need for quite a number of different computers with different configurations, but none of this information
was ever captured in the contract. When it came time to get a few more computers to match the configuration
of our new clients' PC's, were were told that the contract didn't allow it and despite my efforts, we were never able to get
new PC's through the IT group…we had to purchase them ourselves and support them ourselves. Shadow IT at its finest.
The bottom line is we have to figure out a way to provide needed user services while meeting the legitimate IT concerns
or the users will by-pass IT and do it on their own.
Mike is right. IT needs to be able to provide services to the business that force the business to never have to think about
IT…don't give IT users the opportunity or reason to look outside of the IT group for support. In other words, provide top-notch
support to the business. This may require additional costs in adding headcount, but it might be something to consider if a good
portion of the IT groups' time is spent fighting Shadow IT issues.
Another way to solve the Shadow IT problem is for IT groups and senior leadership to understand the value that the IT group
can provide to the organization. IT can do so much more than 'support computers'…they can provide a strategic advantage as well.
Mike's post, which describes an article titled "Users
Who Know Too Much (And the CIOs Who Fear Them)" on
CIO.com provides a great overview
of how to solve the Shadow IT problem and is definitely worth jumping over and reading the CIO.com article and Mike's post.
I like the name, 'Shadow IT'. I have to say that I've been a part of it in the past, and I'm a part of
Shadow IT in my current workplace, too. Partly due to the fact that for a decade I was working as a graphic designer, and company
IT has been less than happy with having to work with Macs until relatively recently (the OS X years), so
there is a whole generation of the design industry who are accustomed to providing their own network
support and troubleshooting.
The other part seems to be the lack of understanding of technology in general from a senior management level. The old guard
of managers don't understand, for example, that it *might* just be a good idea to check with IT before committing to server
solutions and rich internet application builds until it's usually too late.
The upshot of all of this is that the IT Professional can no longer be expected to be the single-source of Information Technology
advice. Nowadays you've got content managers and enterprise-level tech departments which operate on a P&L bottom line and outside
of the traditional IT chain of command. If IT is going to combat the development of 'shadow IT' departments, it needs to become
much less of a silo and more of a distributed network of knowledge leadership, but also knowledge support.
Which is very plain from the tech person's POV, but not so much so from Sr. Mgmt or within the legacy hierarchy structures
that most companies are struggling to revise or retool.
America Online, eBay, Google, iTunes, MySpace, instant messaging, Yahoo, YouTube. What would life, or work, be like without these
and other popular Internet-driven diversions?
Today's workers are tech savvy, and government employees are no exception. They want and use the latest applications. Whether
their information technology administrators like it or not, federal workers are using the software to be more productive or, at times,
to be entertained.
These un-approved applications don't come from agency IT shops, though; employees are downloading them directly off the Internet.
The practice has become so widespread in all kinds of organizations that it now has its own descriptor: shadow IT.
The problem is that shadow IT poses security risks. The applications could have vulnerabilities that provide the holes hackers
need to access employee computers and government networks and steal information or install malware. At a hearing this summer of the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, security monitoring company Tiversa Inc. testified that it had found 200 government
documents during a scan of the top three peer-to-peer software applications, which allow computer users with the same software to
share files stored on their PCs or laptops.
Fear of security mishaps has caused some IT managers to ban unapproved technology by issuing strict policies or configuring firewalls
to block applications. But how realistic is it to expect users to steer clear of the increasing array of cool technology tools? "Resistance
is futile," says Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, a nonprofit cyber-security research organization in Bethesda,
Md.
And fighting shadow IT could be counterproductive. Agencies that institute prohibitive policies will face substantial pushback,
Paller predicts. Such policies could radically reduce the convenience of useful information sources and communications platforms,
and could make employees less productive in the long run, he says.
Videoconferencing and wireless Internet access, which many agencies initially opposed, serve as examples of how departments could
come to accept other new technologies, Paller says. When agencies blocked the use of Wi-Fi, managers sometimes couldn't reach workers,
which ushered in the use of wireless technologies.
But the federal government has done little to keep up with the proliferation of applications. The latest policy governing employee
use of government-issued PCs or laptops is now eight years old. According to a 1999 report from the interagency Chief Information
Officers Council, workers are permitted limited use of office equipment -- including Internet services and e-mail -- for personal
needs if it does not interfere with official business and involves minimal expense to the government.
Inappropriate uses are any that could cause congestion, delay or disruption of service to government systems. Creating, downloading,
viewing, storing, copying or transmitting materials that are "illegal, inappropriate or offensive to fellow employees or the public"
is prohibited as well.
To make sure employees follow proper procedures, some agencies, such as the
General Services Administration, inform employees that their computer activities are continuously monitored. But a 16-year GSA
veteran, who asked not to be named, says whether managers are "actively doing that is questionable."
The bottom line is "these workstations are not for personal use," he says. Still, this worker routinely checks his personal Yahoo.com
e-mail account, which is "unavoidable because you're at work eight or nine hours a day," he says.
Personal applications downloaded from the Internet are widely used in government, including many congressional offices, where
instant messaging is practically the primary means of communication. A former chief of staff on the Hill says IM was a necessity
in his office. Sometimes he would find himself IMing facts and figures to his press secretary from across the room while his colleague
conducted a telephone interview with a reporter.
The frenzy over downloaded software has only just begun, Paller warns. Applications being used without IT managers' blessings
are "a tenth of what you'll see in two or three years," he says. The popularity of one of the largest virtual worlds, Second Life,
and any number of next-generation Web wonders are going to fuel what he predicts will be an intensely interactive, "high-fidelity,
high-bandwidth" culture -- if it hasn't already begun.
Instead of fighting it, Paller advises finding a secure way to allow the technologies. Agencies should embrace the concept
of "comply and connect" rather than "scan and block," he says. Since 2005, the
Air Force
has not allowed any computer to be connected to the Air Force network unless it has a common configuration and all patches and updated
security software have been installed, Paller says. In March, the
Office of Management and Budget recognized the economic and security benefits of the initiative and issued a similar mandate
for all agencies.
Marty Lindner, a senior staffer at Carnegie Mellon University's federally funded Software Engineering Institute, offers a common-sense
solution. IT restrictions should be squared with the mission of the agency and the sensitivity of job functions, he says. "If I'm
the operator of a nuclear power plant, I don't think anything should be allowed on that [computer] desktop that doesn't have to do
with running that power plant," Linder says.
Agencies also should create a detailed policy about what can be loaded onto PCs and laptops. Most important, IT managers then
must check individual PCs and laptops to "make sure people are following it," Lindner says. Setting an office policy can define "the
things you should not do and the things you're allowed to do based on your business model," he says. "Just highlighting the stuff
you cannot do is a bad way to write policy."
One way to let employees know what they can do is to create "white lists" of approved applications and popular Web destinations
that employees can download and visit, says Shawn McCarthy, analyst at Government Insights, a Falls Church, Va., IT consulting firm.
IT administrators sometimes are reluctant to embrace this approach because it's a big job, and they should not be setting business
policies, he says. But the trick, McCarthy says, is to find "the right balance between individual productivity and the needs of the
IT department."
Andrew Noyes is a senior writer for National Journal's Technology Daily.
You've no doubt heard about the stealth cloud-people "flying under the radar" consuming IT services without the permission or
support of IT. Personally, I call it Shadow IT, because SH**IT happens-and whether you want to admit it or not, it's happening in
your company.
Business users are adopting cloud computing in droves-underground. So what can you do? Embrace it. Well, that is if you want to
maintain enterprise security and compliance-and retain your customers. Recently, I read a really interesting
article on this
very topic-which includes some ideas on how to address this growing challenge. It's a good article. Give it a read if you have a
few minutes.
So why are IT organizations still so averse to cloud computing? Most people today will tell you it all boils down to concerns
over security. However, most cloud providers can probably provide better security than most enterprises can. After all, their core
business depends on it for survival. So I've started to wonder if it isn't more of a case of insecurity. You see, for as long as
I can remember, IT's perceived role has been one of control. Underground cloud computing takes away virtually all of that control
and puts it squarely in the hands of business users.
From what I've seen over the years, IT people are often insecure about their jobs or abilities. If they lose control of what goes
into the cloud, perhaps they fear they won't have anything to build or manage, or anyone left to control.
What IT perhaps fails to see is that when a business user goes around them and starts using an unapproved cloud-based app, they're
not doing it out of malice. They're just trying to get their job done-and they view IT as too inflexible and unresponsive to help
them. So they take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, this underground cloud computing opens the company up to untold risk
exposure and compliance issues, which could easily drive away customers if something were to go wrong.
So whether IT likes it or not, the time has come to start embracing cloud computing. IT needs to become more flexible and responsive
to keep up with the pace of today's business. Trust me, it'll make upper management and your auditors much happier.
Intelligent workload management, infused with identity, can make the process that much more painless. Specifically,
Novell WorkloadIQ solutions can help you and your IT organization
discover the underground cloud applications that are being used, evaluate them and adopt the ones that make sense for your business.
Then, you can build, secure, manage and measure your workloads across physical, virtual and cloud environments quicker and easier-and
with confidence.
If your head is in the sand, pull it out-get past the insecurities and shine some light on stealth cloud.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
If
you are in IT and are not familiar with Archibald Putt, I suggest you stop reading this blog
post, RIGHT NOW, and go buy the book 
© REUTERS/ Carlos Barria
#LockHerUp: Hillary Clinton Gradually Losing Veneer of Being 'Too Big to Jail'
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton insists that the US Department of Justice should
launch an independent investigation into the Clinton email case.
© Twitter: RT_America
Emailgate: Untold Story of Clinton Foundation's Ties With Defense Contractors
The exposure has once again shed light on Clinton's mishandling of classified
information.
© REUTERS/ Yonhap
Clinton's #Emailgate: The Dangerous Militarization of the Asia-Pacific Region
The email was sent at the beginning of the Second Kyrgyz Revolution, which resulted
in the ousting of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev and appointment of Otunbayeva
as the country's interim leader and then the country's president.
© REUTERS/ Carlos Barria
Flynn's RT Case: What About Hillary Clinton Taking Fees From Foreign Gov'ts?
Meanwhile, an
email exchange
dated March 15, 2010, indicates that numerous accusations
against Hillary Clinton, which cited possible conflicts of interest, were not
completely unjustified.
Thanks very much for this handy compendium!