An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
In 2015: Washington (CNN) A highly trained group of Chinese hackers is targeting defense, commercial and political organizations worldwide, pulling off sophisticated heists of sensitive information, according to new research out Wednesday.
Though Chinese cyberespionage has been well-documented, researchers from Dell SecureWorks Counter Threat Unit — a division of Dell tech company — say this group, nicknamed Emissary Panda by another research firm, has pulled off cyberattacks at a level of sophistication and specialization rarely seen before among Chinese hackers. More here.
FreeBeacon: China’s cyber attacks against U.S. government and private sector databases are part of a major intelligence-gathering operation and are likely to continue, according to a new report by a cyber security firm.
Chinese hackers stole health care data pertaining to some 80 million Americans last year, and the Office of Personnel Management cyber attacks netted sensitive records on 22 million federal workers, according to an annual threat report made public Wednesday by CrowdStrike, a cyber security and intelligence company. The company is widely consulted by both government and private sector organizations.
The gathering of personal data by the Chinese represents a new trend in Beijing’s aggressive cyber attacks.
“This targeting underscores that intrusion operations associated with nation-states pose a significant risk to all data, no matter how uninteresting it may seem,” the report said.
The 49-page “2015 Global Threat Report” also states that the U.S.-China agreement not to conduct commercial cyber theft has had little impact on Beijing’s cyber operations.
“Beneath the surface, however, China has not appeared to change its intentions where cyber is concerned,” the report said.
Any reduction in Chinese cyber attacks this year likely will be temporary, and an apparent reduction may result from the use of more clandestine methods for conducting attacks following a major military reorganization.
The military changes “will likely increase [China’s] reliance on its civilian intelligence agencies and associated contractors, all of which generally employ better tradecraft,” the report said.
“If observed campaigns in late 2015 were any indication, it is unlikely China will completely cease its cyber operations, and 2016 will show the new direction it is headed,” the report said.
More cyber attacks seeking personal data could take place in the future, and organizations that hold such data “should remain alert to the possibility of similar activity going into 2016,” the report said.
China’s cyber spies usually use cyber intrusions to steal strategic information, such as intellectual property, business operations data, and sensitive government documents.
Stolen personal data, on the other hand, “is typically used to facilitate identity theft or other types of financially motivated crimes,” the report said.
However, the compromised personal information from health insurance companies Anthem, Premera, and CareFirst last year could be used by the government or state-run companies.
The large data theft also appears to be part of Chinese efforts to “build out profiles on individuals to support future operations.”
The federal government data breaches were more damaging and included sensitive background investigation information on federal employees, the report said.
“Without doubt, access to this degree of [personally identifiable information] for both successful and unsuccessful applicants represents a treasure trove of information that may be exploited for counterintelligence purposes,” the report said.
The Chinese can now exploit millions of stolen records for intelligence operations.
“Knowledge acquired during these operations could be used to create more individualized, and therefore more effective, spear phishing campaigns, or also in more traditional, real-world espionage activity,” the report said, noting that the background investigation data “would be particularly useful to traditional [human intelligence] operations as it contains details of a very personal nature about current and former government employees, as well as private sector employees working on government contracts.”
The Chinese government, through the Ministry of Public Security, has launched a major domestic campaign to crack down on online dissent. The Ministry is conducting cyber operations against people and websites that post information opposed by communist authorities, including use of an offensive cyber security force called the “Great Cannon,” a supplement to the Great Firewall designed to block online users from accessing unapproved content.
In Russia, hackers linked to the government used malicious software for intelligence-gathering and for political coercion, such as against Ukraine. Moscow hackers also have conducted cyber reconnaissance—preparation of the cyber battlefield—in Europe and elsewhere.
“In February, widespread spear phishing … was detected and analyzed,” the report said. “These attacks targeted numerous entities in government, defense, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and South America.”
Russian hackers used stolen emails from a hack against the U.S. strategic consulting firm Stratfor, the report said, a tactic not typical of Russian hacking in the past.
International pressure on Moscow over its military activities, such as the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea “portend increased intelligence collection by Russia-based adversaries particularly against regional targets and global energy companies,” the report said.
A Russian cyber intelligence operation, dubbed Berserk Bear, targeted oil and gas companies in the Middle East. Another operation, called Fancy Bear, targeted Chinese defense firms.
One Russian hacker group called CyberBerkut operating in Ukraine appears linked to Russian intelligence services.
North Korean cyber activities last year principally involved intelligence-gathering operations directed against South Korea.
Pressure from China could prompt Pyongyang to take a more aggressive cyber posture. And North Korean cyber activities also could expand into criminal activities to raise money for the regime, the report said.
Iran is expected to step up cyber attacks against Saudi Arabia. Regional tensions “increase the likelihood that Iran would use its proven cyber capabilities in 2016, targeting Saudi Arabia and regional governments that are becoming involved in the two countries’ dispute by choosing to align with Saudi Arabia.”
The report names more than 70 cyber adversaries and divides them into three types of attackers: Target intruders, such as nation states, cyber criminals, and “hacktivists.”
For cyber crime, attacks on banks and the use of ransom schemes increased during 2015.
“Phishing emails continued to dominate crimeware distribution throughout the year as the primary mechanism used for the aforementioned banking Trojans and ransomware threats,” the report said.
So-called hacktivist activities including politically motivated cyber attacks by groups like the Syrian Electronic Army and pro-ISIS hackers.
Several pro-Iranian hacker groups also were active last year, including Parastoo, Remember EMAD, and SOBH Cyber Jihad.
The group Remember EMAD—named after the Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah who was killed in a Damascus car bomb in 2009—claimed to have penetrated Pentagon networks and then threatened to release stolen data. No data was ever released.
ISIS hacking was very active last year and included campaigns of web defacement, the release of personal data—known as “doxing”—and the hijacking of social media accounts.
Edward Snowden did perform a duty and that was to expose the NSA programs and the associated intrusions. However, stealing documents and sharing them with roque nations and adversarial countries is best described as high crimes and misdemeanors. Would planning a rendition operation be altogether misguided?
TheNational: THE UK GOVERNMENT is facing demands to reveal the details of a secret flight through Scottish airspace which was at the centre of a plot to capture whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The plane, which passed above the Outer Hebrides, the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, was dispatched from the American east coast on June 24 2013, the day after Snowden left Hong Kong for Moscow. The craft was used in controversial US ‘rendition’ missions.
Reports by Scottish journalist Duncan Campbell claim the flight, travelling well above the standard aviation height at 45,000 feet and without a filed flight plan, was part of a mission to capture Snowden following his release of documents revealing mass surveillance by US and UK secret services.
That the flight passed over Scotland, airspace regulated by the UK, has raised questions over UK complicity in a covert mission to arrest Snowden and whether any police, aviation or political authorities in Scotland were made aware of the flight path.
Alex Salmond, the SNP foreign affairs spokesman and Scotland’s First Minister when the flight took place, has called for full transparency from the UK Government over the case.
He said: “As a matter of course and courtesy, any country, particularly an ally, should be open about the purposes of a flight and the use of foreign airspace or indeed airports.”
“What we need to know now is, was this information given to the UK Government at the time. If so, then why did they give permission? If not, then why not? As a minimum requirement, the UK authorities should not allow any activity in breach of international law in either its airspace or its airports.
“That is what an independent Scotland should insist on. Of course, since no rendition actually took place in this instance, it is a moot point as to whether intention can constitute a breach of human rights. However, we are entitled to ask what the UK Government knew and when did they know it.”
The flight took place after US federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Snowden on June 14. Regular meetings with the FBI and CIA, convened by US Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco, then planned Snowden’s arrest for alleged breaches of the Espionage Act, according to The Washington Post.
New documents, revealed by Danish media group Denfri, confirm that the N977GA plane was held at a Copenhagen airport for “state purposes of a non-commercial nature”. Two days later Danish authorities received an “urgent notification” from the US Department of Justice to cooperate in arresting Snowden.
N977GA was previously identified by Dave Willis in Air Force Monthly as an aircraft used for CIA rendition flights of US prisoners. This included the extradition of cleric Abu Hamza from the UK. Snowden accused the Danish Government of conspiring in his arrest. In response to flight reports, he said: “Remember when the Prime Minister Rasmussen said Denmark shouldn’t respect asylum law in my case? Turns out he had a secret.”
Snowden was behind the largest leak of classified information in history, revealing spying activities that were later deemed illegal on both sides of the Atlantic. He was elected rector at the University of Glasgow in February 2014, yet is unable to fully carry out his duties.
Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, echoed calls for an inquiry into the flight: “It will certainly raise suspicions that an aircraft previously identified as involved in rendition flew through UK airspace at that time. We have a right to know what UK and Scottish authorities knew about this flight given it is implicated in the US response to whistleblowing about global surveillance.”
ATTEMPTS to arrest Snowden have failed as Russian authorities refused to comply. However, pressure from US authorities made it dangerous for Snowden to travel from Russia to Latin America, where Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela have all offered him asylum.
The presidential plane of Bolivian leader Evo Morales was forced to ground in Vienna, after four EU nations refused airspace access on the mistaken belief that Snowden was hidden on board.
In 2013 Police Scotland launched an investigation into whether other US rendition flights – where prisoners were taken to blacklist torture sites – used Scottish airports or airspace.
In 2006 aviation expert Chris Yates said it was likely that a US rendition flight had passed through Scottish airspace to Syria, in a case where the prisoner, Maher Arar, said he was tortured.
In 2008 then foreign secretary David Miliband admitted that UK airports had been used for US rendition flights and apologised for previous government denials.
American politics lecturer John MacDonald, director of foreign policy group the Scottish Global Forum, said: “Given the constitutional arrangements, there are a number of areas in which the Scottish Government may well have interests or concerns but will be excluded because security arrangements with the US are deemed ‘out of bounds’ for Scotland.
“However, if you take serious the supposition that all responsible governments have a moral and legal obligation to raise questions about flights which may be involved in dubious security and intelligence activities, then the Scottish Government may well have an interest in – or even be obliged to –raise questions.
“Questions have already been raised about the nature of military and intelligence air traffic through Scotland and if this activity is raising concerns within Scottish civil society – and it seems to be – then it is surely incumbent upon the Scottish Government to raise the issue with London.”
National Air Traffic Control Systems (Nats), who control flight access to UK airspace, said rendition flights are an issue for the UK Government. In response to questions, the UK Government refused to provide details on attempts to arrest Snowden or on the passage of the N977GA flight.
The Scottish Government also avoided a direct statement on the case on legal grounds. A spokesman said: “There is already an ongoing Police Scotland investigation, directed by the Lord Advocate. This investigation will seek to gather all available evidence of rendition flights using Scottish airports. As this is a live investigation it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
During his two and a half years in Moscow, Snowden has caused diplomatic ruptures and a worldwide debate on privacy and state security. In October 2015 the European Parliament voted narrowly, in a non-binding motion, to drop charges against him in recognition of “his status as [a] whistle-blower and international human rights defender”.
Documents obtained exclusively by LobeLog confirm that Argentine officials violated an agreement with the US Treasury Department by leaking sensitive financial information regarding deceased prosecutor Alberto Nisman. These leaks could complicate further US-Argentine cooperation in the controversial investigations surrounding Nisman’s death.
The leaks exposed a number of suspicious financial transactions involving a New York bank account maintained by Nisman since March 2002. Argentine authorities are currently investigating the possibility that the account was used for money laundering, while a separate inquiry attempts to determine the cause of Nisman’s death.
Argentine investigators have previously hypothesized that some of the deposits in Nisman’s New York account could be linked to a group of US investors, including some prominent funders of conservative political causes, who have been locked in a years-long legal battle with Argentina over the country’s debt.
And media reports have recently surfaced that appear to confirm that Nisman received questionable payments through a separate bank account in Uruguay from a company owned by US billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of the most influential fund-raisers on the American conservative political scene.
Neither the money laundering investigation nor the inquiry into Nisman’s death has yet reached an official conclusion. But the information contained in the documents obtained by LobeLog, combined with a months-long investigation, sheds new light on a case that Argentine journalist Uki Goni wrote has “enough twists and turns to satisfy the most avid conspiracy theorist.”
Suicide or Murder?
When Nisman was found dead in his apartment on January 18, 2015, the news made headlines around the world. For more than a decade, the prosecutor had led the investigation into the 1994 bombing of the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association—AMIA, by its Spanish acronym—the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in Latin American history.
In 2006, Nisman formally charged several high-level Iranian officials with masterminding the bombing. Just days before he died, he had accused the administration of former Argentine President Cristina Kirchner of making a pact with the Iranians in 2013 to set aside their alleged involvement in the AMIA attack in exchange for closer economic ties between the two countries.
The day before Nisman was scheduled to testify about his allegations in an emergency session of congress, he was found dead in his bathroom with a single gunshot wound to his head.
Many observers have speculated that Nisman’s death relates in one way or another to his involvement in the AMIA case, especially given the nature and timing of the accusations he lodged against the Kirchner government. Kirchner herself has suggested that rogue elements of the country’s now-disbanded and reconstituted intelligence service murdered Nisman in order to destabilize her government.
On the other hand, Argentine journalist Facundo Pastor recently published a book suggesting that Nisman killed himself after realizing the weakness of the evidence for his allegations. “He spent two years confronting the government,” Pastor toldThe Independent, “but the day comes to present his case and Nisman realises that he has nothing.”
An Argentine federal judge dismissed Nisman’s charges against the Kirchner administration soon after the prosecutor’s death. The country’s recently inaugurated president Mauricio Macri has promised not to appeal a separate ruling by an Argentine court that declared the 2013 agreement with Iran unconstitutional.
Argentine government investigators still have not determined whether Nisman’s death was a suicide or a murder, but members of Nisman’s family have questioned several aspects of the government’s inquiry so far. And adding yet another twist to an already convoluted story, the late prosecutor’s ex-wife, Sandra Arroyo Salgado, who serves as a federal judge in Argentina, has maintained that Nisman was assassinated for “economic motives.”
Money Laundering
Arroyo Salgado revealed the existence of Nisman’s New York bank account to Argentine authorities in March 2015. Nisman’s mother, Sara Garfunkel, and his sister, Sandra Nisman, were listed as signatories on the account, as was Diego Lagomarsino—the technology expert who worked in Nisman’s office and admitted to giving the late prosecutor the gun that apparently killed him.
Shortly after Arroyo Salgado’s revelation, the Financial Information Unit (UIF) of the Argentine Justice and Human Rights Ministry asked for money laundering charges to be brought against Lagomarsino, who had reportedly sent half his monthly salary to the New York account. Soon after Lagomarsino was charged, Garfunkel and Sandra Nisman were also indicted for their alleged involvement in laundering funds through the account.
In April, the federal judge then in charge of the case, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, requested information on the alleged money laundering from US authorities. According to the documents obtained by LobeLog, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) “shared sensitive financial information with the UIF on Argentinian [sic] subjects associated with the deceased prosecutor and their joint investment account at Merrill Lynch in New York, and other accounts in Uruguay and other countries.”
“Since the [Argentine] courts’ requests for information from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) were taking too long,” the document continues, the head of the UIF, Jose Alberto Sbatella, “was asked by Argentine Federal Judge Canicoba Corral to ask for FinCEN’s permission to incorporate FinCEN’s relevant report in the case file so that it could be used as evidence in court.”
On July 7, Argentine news outlet Infobae reported that it had gained exclusive access to documents related to the money laundering case. A few days later, on July 16, Infobaereported that Sbatella had turned over the FinCEN report to Canicoba Corral, and that the judge was seeking to incorporate it as evidence in the proceedings. (This request was granted in September.)
Then, on July 27, the Buenos Aires-based news outlet Pagina/12 published an article titled “Nisman and his incredible financial relations,” which revealed previously unknown details about suspicious transactions involving Nisman’s New York account.
Several other media reports followed that contained information apparently provided by FinCEN to the UIF, which had in turn handed it over to Canicoba Corral, who was removed from the case in November after making prejudicial statements to various media outlets about the defendants’ alleged guilt.
Anatomy of a Leak
A US State Department employee sent an email with an English translation of the Pagina/12 article to colleagues at the Treasury Department on August 6, captioning it with the message, “It now appears indisputable that Argentine authorities, in violation of their agreement with Treasury, have leaked information about Alberto Nisman.”
On August 24, a State Department employee sent another email to colleagues at the Treasury Department with links to both above-mentioned articles.
“[I] wanted to make sure you or you successor at Treasury saw that the story below made the front page of Perfil this weekend and was picked up by the [Buenos Aires] Herald today,” the message reads in part. The author then asks, “Is this just rehashing of an old story or something new?”
The documents—obtained by LobeLog from the Treasury Department via a freedom of information request—are almost entirely redacted, making it impossible to tell what, if any, response Treasury employees provided to the State Department emails.
The Treasury Department and the State Department declined to comment for this story, as did the US Department of Justice. The latter claimed through a spokesperson that the “investigation is a matter of Argentine jurisdiction and, therefore, any inquiries should be directed to Argentine authorities.” LobeLog sought comment from the Argentine Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, but did not receive a response.
Unexplained Transactions
The August 23 article from Perfil, based on information reportedly provided by US financial investigators to their Argentine counterparts, detailed nearly $600,000 in suspicious deposits made to Nisman’s New York bank account between 2012 and 2014.
Officials from the UIF had previously speculated that some of that deposits could have originated from the “holdouts,” a group of investors who have refused Argentina’s debt restructuring offers, and who stand to make billions of dollars if they prevail in the related legal dispute that is currently playing out in U.S. courts. One of the most prominent “holdouts” is NML Capital, owned by billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican Party power broker Paul Singer.
Since Nisman’s death, lobbying groups with ties to the “holdouts” have funded efforts to promote his work on the AMIA case. While the prosecutor was alive, these organizations spent millions of dollars on a campaign to “do whatever we can to get our government and media’s attention focused on what a bad actor Argentina is,” in the words of one group’s executive director.
An independent investigation by LobeLog did not reveal any definite links between the “holdouts” and the depositors identified by various news reports. However, the timing of some of the transactions does appear to coincide with important developments related to the debt dispute.
One example is that of “Joseph Gestetner,” who deposited $10,000 in Nisman’s account on September 13, 2012. Perfilreported that his name “does not appear in official records.” When contacted for comment, New York-based public relations professional and Orthodox Jewish community activist Yossi Gestetner—sometimes known as Joseph—denied that the documents obtained by Perfil referred to him.
Public records searches similarly turned up little information about “Daniel Benayon,” who transferred $15,000 to Nisman’s account on the same day as the transfer from Gestetner. A Facebook profile indicates that a man named Daniel Benayon lived in Argentina and worked for a Buenos Aires-based Orthodox Jewish organization, but messages seeking comment from this individual did not receive a response.
One of the largest single deposits revealed by Perfil came from “RODFA Limited,” which transferred $134,975 to Nisman’s New York account on September 14, 2012—the day after the deposits from Gestetner and Benayon.
Public records research uncovered that the company was incorporated in March 2012 in Hong Kong, listing “Rodrigo Martin Ferreiros” and “Facundo Pla” as signatories on the incorporation documents. (The name RODFA appears to derive from the first several letters of the two individuals’ names.)
A document filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry notes that Pla ceased to act as director of RODFA on September 1, 2012—roughly two weeks before the deposit to Nisman’s account. A separate document indicates that Ferreiros assumed the position of director in March 2013. According to RODFA’s most recent annual filing, Ferreiros, who listed a Buenos Aires address in the document, continued to serve as director of RODFA as of March 2015.
Infobae reporter Andres Ballesteros revealed that the Argentine Senate briefly employed an individual named Rodrigo Martin Ferreiros from September to December 2013. However, efforts to uncover more detailed information about Ferreiros and Pla, as well as attempts to contact them for comment, were unsuccessful.
The series of deposits from September 13 and 14, 2012—totaling roughly $160,000—occurred at the same time that an important discussion of the Argentine debt situation was unfolding at a meeting of the “Paris Club,” an informal group of financial officials from various countries tasked with helping resolve disputes between creditors and debtor nations. The deposits also coincided with mass anti-government protests in Argentina against the administration of then-president Cristina Kirchner.
More Mysterious Deposits
In addition to the transfers described above, Perfil also revealed a $50,000 deposit to Nisman’s account from “Guillermo N. Salemi” [sic] on August 21, 2014, as well as another deposit of $50,000 made the same day from a firm called “Las Tierras USA.” An individual named Guillermo N. Salimei [sic] is listed as the registered agent of three active companies incorporated in the Miami area in 2013, including Las Tierras USA.
When contacted for comment, the registered president of Las Tierras, Agustin Misson, confirmed that he was a “friend” of Salimei, but claimed that he did not know how to get in touch with him. Misson also said he knew nothing about the bank transfers. Further attempts to reach Salimei for comment were not successful.
On August 21, 2014, the same day as the transfers from Salimi and Las Tierras, a $10,000 deposit was made to Nisman’s account by an entity referred to as “Iungelson (from Israel).” Perfilreported that “Iungelson” may refer to a member of Nisman’s extended family, but LobeLog was unable to determine whether the name refers to an individual or an organization.
On August 22, 2014—the day after the Salimei, Las Tierras and Iungelson transfers—Nisman’s account received a $50,000 deposit from “Vivaterra SA,” whose name matches that of a South American travel agency based in Brazil. LobeLog made initial contact with a representative of the firm’s Argentina office, but repeated requests for comment went unanswered.
This series of deposits—also totaling $160,000—were made less than two weeks after the Kirchner administration announced that it would sue the United States in the International Court of Justice over a ruling by US judge Thomas Griesa that ordered US banks not to process any of Argentina’s payments to its debt-holders until the country also agreed to pay the “holdouts.” The bulk of these payments came on August 21—the same day that Griesa ruled against a proposal by the Argentine government intended as a workaround to his previous decision.
Further Twists and Turns
The name of yet another mysterious figure has also surfaced in connection with Nisman’s New York account: Claudio Picon, the owner of the Argentine packaging business Palermopack. Picon’s brother and business partner Fabian Picon is the son-in-law of Hugo Anzorreguy, the former head of Argentina’s intelligence service who is now on trial for his alleged role in facilitating a bribe to a key witness in the AMIA case.
Perfilreported last June that Claudio Picon deposited $200,000 in Nisman’s account in July 2012, around the time of crucial hearings in the US court system related to the debt dispute between Argentina and the holdouts.
In the August 23 expose, Perfil also documented transfers by Picon to Nisman’s New York account totaling $72,000 between January 2013 and March 2014—a time period during which the controversy over the debt dispute and the agreement between Argentina and Iran regarding the AMIA case reached a peak.
In addition, the Picon brothers’ company owned an Audi Q5 sport utility vehicle commonly driven by Nisman, which Claudio Picon has said he lent to the late prosecutor for free on account of their close friendship. Representatives for the Picons could not be reached for comment.
One of the most enigmatic figures mentioned in the documents obtained by Perfil is Damian Stefanini, an Argentine businessman who deposited $150,000 in Nisman’s account on October 23, 2012—less than a week before Griesa issued another ruling against Argentina in the debt dispute.
Perfil journalist Emilia Delfino reported that according to “judicial sources” Stefanini and Claudio Picon had traveled together to Sao Paulo around the time of that deposit, and that they had also traveled together to other countries, including Paraguay, Uruguay, the United States and China.
On October 17, 2014—just three months before Nisman’s death—Stefanini vanished. His car was later found abandoned near his accountant’s office in Buenos Aires, blocks away from the address listed by Ferreiros as director of RODFA.
Argentine authorities are investigating Stefanini’s disappearance as a kidnapping, but they have not yet identified any suspects. The international law enforcement organization Interpol has issued the equivalent of a worldwide missing person notice for Stefanini.
Arroyo Salgado, Nisman’s ex-wife, had been in charge of the investigation into Stefanini’s disappearance until she was recused from the case in October due to her potential for bias following the revelation of the financial link between the missing entrepreneur and her late ex-husband. Arroyo Salgado has indicated that she will appeal that decision.
Murky Outlook
The leak of information provided in confidence by US authorities to their Argentine counterparts could complicate further cooperation between the United States and Argentina regarding the investigations into Nisman’s death and the money laundering that allegedly occurred using his New York bank account.
At the same time, the recent election of Mauricio Macri as Argentina’s president could help improve the country’s often-strained relations with the United States. Following Macri’s victory, US congressional Representatives Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) called for the US to “prioritize” its relationship with Argentina, saying the two nations “should be natural partners.”
When Macri announced his intention not to appeal the decision voiding the 2013 Argentine-Iranian agreement, the Twitter account of the foreign affairs committee of the House of Representatives posted a message signed by Royce that read, “Glad to see #Argentina has scrapped this disturbing pact w/ #Iran.”
It remains to be seen, however, whether an improvement in overall US-Argentine relations would also include a deepening of cooperation on the Nisman case, especially given the previous breach of trust.
In fact, the US Department of Justice recently declined a request to turn over Nisman’s electronic communication records to Argentine prosecutor Viviana Fein, who was leading the investigation into the late prosecutor’s death. Judge Fabiana Palmaghini has since replaced Fein as head of the investigation, and has made it clear that she intends to closely examine the possibility that Nisman may have been murdered.
As several observers and commentators have previously noted, Nisman is only the latest in a long line of high-profile Argentine figures who died suddenly under mysterious circumstances. Controversy continues to surround many of these previous cases years after the investigations ended. And even the AMIA case itself remains unsolved, despite the passage of more than two decades since the attack.
This history suggests that a full accounting of Nisman’s death—whether it was tied to his work on the bombing or to the suspicious deposits, or whether those two threads of the story relate to one another—will not be forthcoming any time soon.
The public sector experienced nearly 50 times more cyber incidents than any other industry in 2014, and government agencies consistently cite implementing robust, agile cybersecurity measures as a top priority. As threats continue to evolve in both scale and capacity, it is increasingly essential that organizations devise and implement robust, agile measures to continuously detect, monitor, and address both external and internal vulnerabilities.
In an effort to learn more about the perspective of public sector employees on cybersecurity, Government Business Council conducted a flash poll on the following question:
GBC received responses from 160 federal, state, and local government employees. Nearly 90% stated that they were concerned or very concerned about the impact of cyber attacks; only 5% were not very concerned or not at all concerned about potential breaches. The results also reveal cybersecurity to be a more pressing concern for state and local organizations than for their federal counterparts: 96% of state and local respondents were concerned or very concerned about breaches, a 13-point difference from the percentage of federal employees expressing a similar level of concern.
Lack of resources might make cybersecurity a more pressing issue for state organizations — according to a 2015 survey of state CIOs, 64% cited insufficient funding as a major barrier against addressing cyber threats, and 62% cited inadequate availability of security professionals. There is also a disconnect between perception of state cybersecurity capabilities and reality: while 60% of state officials had a high level of confidence in the ability of states to defend against attacks, only a quarter of state CISOs responded likewise.
Moving forward, state and federal agencies should continue to invest in developing a cohesive cybersecurity strategy, recruiting and retaining personnel with the relevant skill set, and sharing threat information and best practices across organization. As federal CIO Tony Scott puts it, “Cyber threats cannot be eliminated entirely, but they can be managed much more effectively. And we can best do this by aligning and focusing our efforts, by properly funding necessary cyber investments, by building strong partnerships across government and industry, and by drawing on the best ideas and talent from across the country to tackle this quintessential problem of the 21st century.” GBC will revisit this topic in future research posts.
NYPost: The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal emails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency email address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.
“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.
The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov email address like previous secretaries.
“That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,” Krongard said in an exclusive interview. “How else was she supposed to do business without email?”
He also points to the unusual absence of a permanent inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. He said the 5½-year vacancy was unprecedented. Much more to Sperry’s summary is here.
What do the former military special forces have to say on the matter of Hillary and even some betrayal within their own ranks?
Sofrep: A source within the State Department confirmed with SOFREP back in 2012 that Hillary’s top aid within the department pre-interviewed people regarding Benghazi before they were interviewed by the State Department’s own internal Benghazi Accountability Review Board.
The problem with the State Department investigating itself is that the investigation produced no significant change in the dysfunctional leadership, nor did it hold people accountable for clear negligence (the top three at fault being Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, and Patrick Kennedy). The organization continues to rot from the top down.
Hillary, in particular, shares something in common with former Navy SEAL Team 6 member Matt Bissonette: They both potentially disclosed top secret government information, a clear violation of her non-disclosure agreement and oath. They also share pending legal problems with the feds.
The federal government continues to aggressively pursue Bissonette and anyone associated with him for disclosures in his book “No Easy Day” and for new information found on his personal computer that Bissonette turned over to federal investigators. SOFREP knows of at least one additional active-duty member forced to retire early as a result of information found on Bissonette’s laptop. Will the same measure of justice and accountability be applied to the political celebrity and former Secretary of State Clinton?
In a recent New York Times article, the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton as an experienced presidential candidate.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration. -NY Times editorial board
Hillary leveraged her political star power to secure her position as secretary of state, a clear Democrat concession prize for losing to Obama last time around. It was likely her strategic plan to further build her resume, and wait things out until 2016. She did little to promote American diplomacy or secure global stability abroad (two pillars of the department’s mission statement).
This is a woman that will do and say anything to get what she wants. I have very little respect for her. I know what she said to me and she can say all day long that she didn’t say it. That’s her cross to bear. She knows that she knew what happened that day, and she wasn’t truthful, and that has come out in the last hearings — that she told her family one thing and was telling the public another thing. —Sister of fallen hero Glen Doherty, Kate Quigley Full article and video is here.
Herridge/FNC: EXCLUSIVE:Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.
From Observer: ( CIA Officers names (including NOCs) in Hillary emails. Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.)
The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.
The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.
The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time — from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.
Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.
“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”
Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.
“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.
On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.
“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said.
Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked … including oral communications.”
Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.
“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you … you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”
These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”
The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.
“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.
Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.
Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit — and first reported by Fox News — suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is … [one] great idea.”
“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.
