Showing posts with label Classified information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classified information. Show all posts

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Hacker ‘Guccifer’: ‘Hillary Clinton’s server was scanned by three countries in 2012-13, mirrored’

ARAD, Romania (INTELLIHUB) — Speaking to Fox News from his prison cell, the hacker ‘Guccifer’ who exposed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct classified government business claims that he is positive that Hillary Clinton’s private email server was scanned by three countries in 2012 and 2013 and that the content was likely mirrored.


‘Guccifer,’ a.k.a. Marcel Lazar, is currently serving a 7-year prison sentence for hacking crimes but managed to spill the beans, the real truth, about the former Madam Secretary’s Chappaqua, New York, server location.



“Look — about the server in Chappaqua, in New York state — that server was scanned [in] 2012 from IP numbers in Serbia and Belgrade, it was scanned again in 2013 from IPs in Ukraine and Russia,” Lazar said. “The point is that somebody had copied, mirrored, the whole server of Hillary Clinton. The question is how many countries […] one, two, or three?”


Moreover, the infamous hacker said that ‘Guccifer 2.0’ is an “inside job” and was fabricated by “guys at the State Department, some guys at Cyber Command of the NSA, and some guys from the vault, Vault 7 of the CIA” to “point a finger at Russia.”


Featured Image: WNPR/Flickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.


Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.


Monday, July 10, 2017

Comey Bombshell: FBI Director’s Leaked Trump Memos Contained Classified Information

(ZHEAmid the constant media outrage over everything Trump, Trump, Trump, some might have forgotten that in the political rollercoaster over the past 12 months, there were numerous other high-profile individuals involved, including not only former DOJ head Loretta Lynch, whose every interaction with the Clinton campaign is about to be probed under a Congressional microscope, but the man who some say started it all: former FBI Director James Comey.







First loved by the Democrats when he personally absolved Hillary Clinton of any sins regarding her (ab)use of her personal email server, then furiously loathed when he reopened the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton one week before the election, then finally getting into a feud with President Trump which cost his him job, Comey ultimately admitted to leaking at least one memo which contained personal recollections of his conversations with the president, in hopes of launching a special probe into the president’s alleged Russian collusion.



There was just one problem: according to a blockbuster report from The Hill, in addition to the leaked memos, Comey also leaked classified information in gross and direct violation of FBI rules and regulations. And just like that Comey finds himself in trouble. Only not just any trouble, but the virtually same trouble that Hillary Clinton was in in the summer of 2016… and which James Comey was tasked to investigate.







We’ll repeat the above because it bears repeating: in the purest definition of irony, James Comey is about to be investigated for the exact same thing which he absolved Hillary Clinton of doing last summer. Almost as if neither Comey nor Clinton were aware of – or willing to abide by – the security protocol of the agency they were in charge of.


Aside from once again confirming that Trump may have been right all along in his accusation of the ex-FBI chief’s motives, this shocking revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules – by putting his own interests above those of his country – but far more grotesquely, ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election, in order to settle his vendetta with President Trump.


Amusingly, Comey’s alleged flagrant disregard for FBI regulations would explain why he also found Clinton’s email server transgressions to not be a material concern, contrary to what most Republicans claimed at the time. After all, if it was good – or rather not bad enough for Clinton, maybe it was the same with Comey’s own abuse of confidential data? The only problem is that while Comey was generous enough to let Hillary go, now that the ex-FBI chief is facing the president of the US as his adversary, he may not be quite so lucky.





Upon hearing of Comey’s alleged transgressions, the now former Chair of the House Oversight Committee said simply that “IF true, this is bombshell news.”


Incidentally, the first to warn of Comey’s imminent headaches, was Breitbart News, which on Friday reported that a new Senate report said recent leaks by former FBI Director James Comey’s leaking of memos could “potentially harm national security.” The report, released by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday, found that there were 125 separate leaks in President Trump’s first 126 days that were potentially damaging to national security. The report said it included Comey’s leaking of his memos after he was fired by Trump in May.


* * *


Comey’s troubles started when he testified under oath last month that he considered the memos he prepared to be personal documents and that he shared at least one of them with a Columbia University lawyer friend. As Comey later disclosed, he asked that lawyer to leak information from one memo to the news media in hopes of increasing pressure to get a special prosecutor named in the Russia case after Comey was fired as FBI director.


The Hill recounts that particular exchange with Senator Roy Blunt:



“So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document?,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked Comey on June 8.  “You considered it to be, somehow, your own personal document that you could share to the media as you wanted through a friend?”


“Correct,” Comey answered. “I understood this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I thought it important to get it out.”



Comey insisted in his testimony he believed his personal memos were unclassified, though he hinted one or two documents he created might have been contained classified information. “I immediately prepared an unclassified memo of the conversation about Flynn and discussed the matter with FBI senior leadership,” he testified about the one memo he later leaked about former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Additionally, he added, “My view was that the content of those unclassified, memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded.”


That’s when the problems escalated, because according to The Hill – which for the first time disclosed that the total number of memos linked to Comey’s nine conversations with Trump – when the seven memos Comey wrote regarding his nine conversations with Trump about Russia earlier this year were shown to Congress in recent days, the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents.


Oops.  As The Hill reveals, four, or more than half, of the seven memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.


This is a major problem for Comey because FBI policy forbids any agent from releasing classified information or any information from ongoing investigations or sensitive operations without prior written permission, and mandates that all records created during official duties are considered to be government property.



“Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law,” states the agreement all FBI agents sign.



FBI policy further adds that “all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America” and that an agent “will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”


Comey indicated in his testimony the memos were in his possession when he left the bureau, leaving him in a position to leak one of them through his lawyer friend to the media. But he testified that he has since turned them over to Robert Mueller, a former FBI chief and now spearheading the investigation about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  It is not clear whether Comey as director signed the same agreement as his agents, but the contract is considered the official policy of the bureau. It was also unclear when the documents were shown to Congress whether the information deemed “secret” or “confidential” was classified at the time Comey wrote the memos or determined so afterwards, the sources said.


Meanwhile, Congressional investigators have already begun examining whether Comey’s creation, storage and sharing of the memos violated FBI rules, but the revelation that four of the seven memos included some sort of classified information opens a new door of inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled, improperly stored or improperly shared.


Where things get especially ironic, is that this was the same issue the FBI – under Comey – investigated in 2015-16 about Clinton’s private email server, at the time the most sensitive and controversial issue of the Clinton campaign, where as secretary of State she and top aides moved classified information through insecure channels.


Ultimately, Comey concluded in July 2016 that Clinton’s email practices were reckless, but that he could not recommend prosecution because FBI agents had failed to find enough evidence that she intended to violate felony statutes prohibiting the transmission of classified information through insecure practices. While the news initially was loved by Democrats as it let Hillary get off scott-free from any potential criminal probe, Comey’s subsequent decision to restart the FBI probe into Clinton’s email server one week before the election is what eventually prompted both Hillary and John Podesta to claim that James Comey was one of the two factors that cost Clinton the presidency… along with the “Russian hacking” of course.


The only problem is that while there is yet no evidence of Russian hacking, suddenly with the factual emergence of Comey’s transgression, questions may emerge not only into the ex-FBI chief’s actions and motives, but whether the FBI’s clearance of Clinton’s use of an email server under Comey was proper after all…


* * *


So what happens next? According to The Hill, congressional investigators are likely to turn their attention to the same issues to determine if Comey mishandled any classified information in his personal memos.


In order to make an assessment, congressional investigators will have to tackle key questions, such as:


  • Where and how were the memos were created, such as whether they were written on an insecure computer or notepad.

  • Where and how the memos were stored, such as inside his home, his briefcase or an insecure laptop.

  • Were any memos shown to private individuals without a security clearance and did those memos contain any classified information

  • When was it determined by the government that the memos contained classified information, before Comey took them and shared one or after.

One avenue for answering those questions is for a panel like Senate Intelligence, House Intelligence or Senate Judiciary to refer the matter to the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, the inspector general, or to the Director of National Intelligence and its inspector general. One thing is certain: the near-future will see many more of Comey’s sworn Congressional testimonies, and the vendetta between Trump and Comey is about to not only be rekindled but escalate to previously unseen levels. For an appetizer of what’s to come, look closely at Trump’s twitter feed once the president learns the news of Comey’s alleged transgressions.


By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / ZeroHedge.com / Report a typo





Thursday, May 18, 2017

Is the Media’s Obsession with Trump and Russia a Distraction from Bigger Issues?

(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) On Monday, the Washington Post ran a story claiming U.S. President Donald Trump had divulged highly classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in a meeting in the Oval Office. The Post came by this information via former and current U.S. officials who continue to remain anonymous.





Trump’s national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, was tasked with mitigating the damage of this leak. However, any success he had at the time (which was very little) was seriously undermined by Trump’s statements that he did, in fact, divulge the information — and that he had every right to do so.



Let’s examine the issues here. According to the Washington Post, Trump gave his Russian counterparts information considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government.” Specifically:







“Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.


Apparently, this information was too sensitive for Trump to give to Russian representatives, but not too sensitive for anonymous officials to leak to the Washington Post, who turn broadcasted it to the entire world. Although the Post hasn’t divulged the minute specifics of this classified information, the outlet did state the following:


“The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.”







In other words, the Post also knows the details of this classified information. Anonymous officials can leak sensitive information to an unaccountable media outlet, but Trump can’t disclose that information to a delegation of people who could actually benefit from the information? How does that work?


Well, one could argue that the ends justify the means, and the conduct of some rogue officials should not in any way absolve Trump from his behavior. Yet even the Post notes Trump didn’t do anything illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify information, making it unlikely he overstepped his authority or broke the law in sharing this information with Russia.


Not to mention that the general details of this information are already known to the public at large, as the mainstream media has already reported on the topic. Just how sensitive is this information, anyway?


It is also worth noting that despite the neoconservative agenda — as regurgitated by the corporate media — Russia is actually one of the only governments that is genuinely combating ISIS militarily. A recent report compiled by the London-based IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center found that the Syrian government and its allies were the most heavily engaged entity fighting ISIS last year. The fact that Russia provides air cover to the Syrian military is quite telling of its desire to defeat ISIS, especially compared to the U.S.-led coalition, which is more or less all over the place with an incoherent strategy and partnership. (Members of the U.S.-led coalition directly sponsor ISIS.)


So, what is the actual issue with this story? That no partnership should ever be attempted, let alone achieved, with Russia? That the country that originally divulged the information to the Trump administration never authorized its disclosure to anyone else? This latter problem certainly undermines confidence in Trump’s ability to manage sensitive information, but it would not be a stretch to say this kind of thing probably happens all the time. For example, New Zealand spies on Pacific Island countries and even important U.S. allies such as Japan. It then passes the information on to the NSA. Australia spied on the Indonesian president in a joint operation with the NSA, as well. None of this is authorized by the host country, but no one bats an eyelid if the U.S. is on the receiving end of the intelligence.


According to Russian-state owned RT, Russian president Vladimir Putin is ready to release a full transcript of the meeting in question to prove that no sensitive leak took place in the first place. Once again, we are witnessing the kind of back and forth tennis match between Trump, the media, and Russia that has plagued our television sets since the election. Why is this narrative dominating our discourse right now?


If you’re up in arms about this story, calling for Trump’s impeachment while remaining completely indifferent to the fact that Trump has empowered his military generals to massacre Iraqi civilians by the thousands, you’re likely part of the problem that has engulfed America.


This Washington Post story is quite possibly a distraction (one of many distractions taking place right now). Most of the corporate media is paying very little attention to a story that broke on Fox News regarding the murder of DNC staff member Seth Rich, who many believe to be behind the leaks that rocked the Democratic campaign last year. Much like the Post, Fox News also relied on an anonymous source, but the story appeared to contain a crucial difference at first. A former D.C. homicide detective and Fox News commentator, Rod Wheeler, who was hired by Rich’s family to probe the case (he is not an anonymous source) seemed to confirm there was email exchange between Rich and Wikileaks, stating, “I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the DC police or FBI headquarters.”


However, this story too has almost all but run into a dead-end, as Wheeler has completely undone the comments Fox News reported. According to CNN, Wheeler was actually referring to reports within the media and said he only learned of any potential link between Wikileaks and Rich from a reporter at Fox News. Whether or not someone threatened Wheeler into overturning his comments is irrelevant, because without direct proof of any link between Rich and Wikileaks the story is no more convincing than Washington Post’s numerous Russia-gate conspiracies.


While both sides of the political coin incessantly chase these rabbit-hole windmills in order to try to demonize or absolve Russia of the numerous allegations against them, something far more sinister is playing out behind the curtains.


As much as the mass media would like to pretend Trump is really in bed with Russia – and as much as the Trump administration has proven itself to be adept at playing along with this narrative – the truth is that Syrian troops backed by Russian airpower were advancing towards an American training base in Syria over the weekend. The doomsday clock is ticking, and Russia and the U.S. are seconds away from an all-out confrontation. The neocons within the Trump administration want these wars to go ahead as planned, but the nationalists who bolstered Trump in his bid to become U.S. president do not.


The other disturbing aspect of this Washington Post story is that unless someone from within Trump’s meeting in the Oval Office directly spilled this information to the Post, the transfer of this information to the media entails that the CIA could very well be spying on Trump, too.


As it transpires, the Washington Post is practically in bed with the CIA, anyway.


The CIA has an agenda, and they want to quell any hopes of a potential peaceful future between Russia and the U.S. Without the American public fearing a Kremlin monster hell-bent on world domination, the CIA and many other global institutions would cease to have any real meaning or purpose.


Opinion / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo






Friday, March 31, 2017

Senator Grassley Asks Why "Extremely Careless" Hillary Still Has Access To Classified State Dept. Info

Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would very much like to understand why Hillary Clinton and 6 of her closest "research aides" may still have access to classified State Department information despite FBI Director Comey"s assertion that they were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."


And, after sending numerous requests to John Kerry"s State Department that "shockingly" fell on deaf ears, Grassely has sent a letter to Secretary of State Tillerson asking why Hillary"s security clearance hasn"t yet been revoked given that "any other government workers who engaged in such serious offenses would, at a minimum, have their clearances suspended pending an investigation."





I have repeatedly asked the State Department whether Secretary Clinton and her associates had their clearances suspended or revoked to which the Obama Administration refused to respond. Recently, the State Department informed the Committee that six additional Secretary Clinton staff at State were designated as her research assistants which allowed them to retain their clearances after leaving the Department.



Director Comey stated that Secretary Clinton and staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” and “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”



Any other government workers who engaged in such serious offenses would, at a minimum, have their clearances suspended pending an investigation.  The failure to do so has given the public the impression that Secretary Clinton and her associates received special treatment.



Fox News corespondent Ed Henry covered the situation this morning on Fox and Friends:





“We’re learning from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that she and six staffers in 2013 retained clearances where they still had access to top secret and classified information, Why? They were titled ‘research assistants.’ So the assumption on Capitol Hill is it was because she was writing her memoirs and saying, ‘Look, I still need access to this information in order to go through what happened in Syria, what happened with Russia. But obviously think back to what James Comey said in how Hillary Clinton handled classified information.”



“He obviously believes something needs to be done about this.  The only positive for Chuck Grassley at this point is, there’s no longer a Democrat at the State Department, obviously. You got Rex Tillerson, so if you have these documents on why she retained these clearances, and for example does she still have a clearance today? A lot of former officials get to keep these clearances for years — when they’re consultants … some of them like to retain it because they say I was in the middle of all of these important issues. I need to keep abreast of it. Been then some of these folks in Washington — they say drain the swamp.”





Something tells us that the current State Department regime may be more responsive to Grassley"s request for information.


The full text of Grassley’s letter can be read below:


* * *
March 30, 2017


VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION


The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520


Dear Secretary Tillerson:


The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is the administrative body within the State Department that handles security clearance investigations, suspensions, and if needed, revocations.  During the course of the Committee’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and the impact of her private server on the Freedom of Information Act, on February 16, 2016 then-Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Greg Starr met with Committee staff.  Assistant Director Starr informed my staff that Secretary Clinton’s security clearance, and those of her staff, had not been suspended or revoked because Diplomatic Security was waiting until the FBI concluded its criminal investigation before beginning an administrative review.  On March 24, 2016, Committee staff met again with Mr. Starr and asked the same questions and received the same responses.  I have repeatedly asked the State Department whether Secretary Clinton and her associates had their clearances suspended or revoked to which the Obama Administration refused to respond. Recently, the State Department informed the Committee that six additional Secretary Clinton staff at State were designated as her research assistants which allowed them to retain their clearances after leaving the Department.


On July 5, 2016, Director Comey announced that “[a]fter a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision.”[2]  Director Comey stated that Secretary Clinton and staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” and “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”[3]  Director Comey said.


There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.[4]


However, Director Comey did not recommend criminal prosecution.  In announcing that decision, he also noted that “[t]o 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.”[5]


It is unclear what steps the State Department has taken to impose administrative sanctions.


Any other government workers who engaged in such serious offenses would, at a minimum, have their clearances suspended pending an investigation.  The failure to do so has given the public the impression that Secretary Clinton and her associates received special treatment.


Please provide answers to the following questions:


  1. Does the State Department agree with the FBI’s finding that Secretary Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” and that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”?

  2. Does the State Department agree with the FBI’s finding that “[t]here is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation”?

  3. Does the State Department agree with the FBI’s finding that despite not recommending criminal prosecution, “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”?

  4. As a result of the FBI investigation, has the State Department begun a security review due to the mishandling of classified information by Secretary Clinton and her colleagues and associates?  If so, which individuals’ clearances are part of the review?  If not, why not?  Please explain.

  5. As a result of the FBI investigation, has the State Department suspended or revoked Secretary Clinton’s clearance or that of any of her colleagues or associates, to include her subordinates at State and her attorneys?  If so, which individuals?  If not, why not?  Please explain.

Please number your answers according to their corresponding questions.  I anticipate that your written response and the responsive documents will be unclassified.  Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee.  In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.  The Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information.  The Committee is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions or instructions on unclassified information unilaterally asserted by the Executive Branch.


Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request.  Please respond to this request by April 13, 2017.  Should you have any questions, please contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.  Thank you for your cooperation.


Sincerely,


Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary