Category Archives: Department of Homeland Security

France warns the entire European project is in ‘very grave danger’

Posted on by

EU leaders consider two-year suspension of Schengen rules

Leaders will consider emergency measures to reintroduce internal borders at meeting on Monday, as France warns the entire European project is in ‘very grave danger’

TelegraphUK: The Schengen system of free movement could be suspended for two years under emergency measures to be discussed by European ministers on Monday, as the French Prime Minister warned the crisis could bring down the entire European Union.

Manuel Valls said that the “very idea of Europe” will be torn apart until the flows of migrants expected to surge in spring are turned away.

On Monday, interior ministers from the EU will meet in Amsterdam to discuss emergency measures to allow states to reintroduce national border controls for two years.

The powers are allowed under the Schengen rules, but would amount to an unprecedented abandonment of the 30-year old agreement that allows passport-free travel across 26 states.

The measure could be brought in from May, when a six-month period of passport checks introduced by Germany expires. The European Commission would have to agree that there are “persistent serious deficiencies” in the Schengen zone’s external border to activate it.

“This possibility exists, it is there and the Commission is prepared to use it if need be,” said Natasha Bertaud, a spokesman for Jean-Claude Juncker.

Greece has been blamed by states for failing to identify and register hundreds of thousands of people flowing over its borders.

Other states that have introduced emergency controls are Sweden, Austria, France, Denmark and Norway, which is not in the EU but is in Schengen.

“We’re not currently in that situation,” Ms Bertaud added. “But interior ministers will on Monday in Amsterdam have the opportunity to discuss and it’s on the agenda what steps should be taken or will need to be taken once we near the end of the maximum period in May.”

Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, will attend the meeting.

in numbers

European refugee crisis

Pic: Action Press/REX Shutterstock

1 million

Refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe via illegal routes

38 percent

Proportion of migrants who are from Syria

1,200,000

Syrian refugees being housed in Lebanon – a country 100 times smaller than Europe

One in five

Proportion of people in Lebanon who are refugees

1 in 122

According to the head of the UN refugee agency, one in 122 people is a refugee

1.2 percent

Proportion of migrants who land in Italy and Greece, then get as far as Calais

100,000

Illegal migrants were stopped from entering Britain by UK Border Force officials in 2015

15 per cent

Proportion of female refugees from Syria who are pregnant in Turkey

Data as of November 2015

In a further blow, Mr Valls said that France would keep its state of emergency, which has included border checks, until the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant network is destroyed.

“It is a total and global war that we are facing with terrorism,” he said.

He warned that without proper border controls to turn away refugees, the 60-year old European project could disintegrate.

“It’s Europe that could die, not the Schengen area. If Europe can’t protect its own borders, it’s the very idea of Europe that could be thrown into doubt. It could disappear, of course – the European project, not Europe itself, not our values, but the concept we have of Europe, that the founding fathers had of Europe.

Migrants help children go over a fence as refugees waits to cross the Slovenian-Austrian border in Sentilj, Slovenia

“Yes, that is in very grave danger. That’s why you need border guards, border controls on the external borders of the European Union.”

He said Europe must tell refugees that they cannot expect to reach Europe.

“We cannot say or accept that all refugees can be welcomed in Europe,”

“Germany is faced with a major challenge. We need to help Germany. But the first message we need to send now is with the greatest of firmness is to say that we will not welcome all the refugees in Europe. Because a message that says come, you will be welcome, provokes major shifts,” he told the BBC.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, said that a fence should be erected on the Macedonian and Bulgarian borders with Greece to curb the inflow of migrants into Europe.

Stefan Lofven, the Swedish Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister, and Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, have each in the past week said that leaders have until March to save the Schengen zone.

Jean-Claude Juncker has warned that is the Schengen zone dies then the euro and the single market could follow.

The Schengen Agreement

What is it?

An agreement, signed in 1985 in the town of Schengen in Luxembourg, to remove border checks within Europe. It means anyone, regardless of nationality, can move freely between member states without showing a passport or visa

Who is a member?

Not the UK. But most EU states are in, as are Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. In total, 26 countries comprising 400 million people

Why is it under strain?

Terrorists and mass migration. Police checks have been brought in on the Italian border at the request of Bavaria, amid a wave of non-EU migrants attempting to reach Germany. Angela Merkel warns the system will be pulled apart unless countries share asylum seekers. And Belgium wants more ID checks on trains in the wake of the Thalys train terrorist attack

Are checks legal?

Police are allowed to make targeted ‘security’ checks on the border, and states can impose border controls in an emergency or for major events for up to 30 days. But permanent, systematic checks on passports are forbidden

What does the European Union say?

Jean Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, says the system is non-negotiable, irreversible, and the EU’s greatest achievement

What do Eurosceptics say?

“Schengen has now hit the buffers of the real world and is falling apart,” says Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

 

Austria announced on Wednesday that it planned to limit the number of people allowed to apply for asylum to 1.5 percent of its population over the next four years, or 37,500.

The move piles more pressure on Angela Merkel, who is facing intense demands from her conservative allies to follow suit.

EU border agency Frontex said on Friday some 108,000 migrants arrived in December in Greece.

That compares to 150,000 arrivals in November and puts the total for Greece and Italy at 1.04 million in 2015, or five times as many as in 2014, Frontex said.

Crossings have slowed due to the cold weather, and are expected to surge when the spring returns.

DHS is Not Deporting Visa Overstays

Posted on by

The numbers are staggering but just for the time period of 2015, 482,000 are residing in the United States illegally. This number is clearly worse than those numbers coming in from the southern border.

DHS admits it’s not deporting most visa overstays

WashingtonExaminer: A pair of Department of Homeland Security officials told the Senate Wednesday that the government does not search for most of the people who overstay their temporary visas, a day after DHS said that nearly 500,000 people were still in the U.S. after having overstayed their visas last year.

“I didn’t mean to imply that we’re actually out monitoring them,” Craig Healy, an assistant director at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., during Senate Judiciary subcommittee panel. Healy said that they review the universe of people who overstayed their visas and “prioritize” the deportation of people who went on to commit other crimes.

Their exchange came at the outset of a hearing on the federal government’s failure to implement a biometric system to track entries into and exits from the country, as required by a 2004 law. A Customs and Border Patrol official said the program couldn’t be implemented without causing “gridlock” at U.S. airports, a response that failed to allay bipartisan concern that the lack of this system is an ongoing national security threat.

“The biometric exit system is still not off the ground and that is unfortunate, very unfortunate, because it is a matter of national security,” New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader-in-waiting, said during the hearing.

John Wagner, deputy assistant commissioner of field operations for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said the program couldn’t be implemented without causing two-hour delays when boarding airplanes. “It’s the placement of the technology and how you collect it to ensure that the person actually departed the United States,” Wagner said. “There’s no zone to do that.”

These answers frustrated Democratic lawmakers who otherwise disagree with Sessions and other immigration hawks the issue of border security and deportations. “It’s hard for me to envision that we can’t figure out where to get a space to do this at an airport or seaport,” said Senator Al Franken, D-Minn. “If you can’t solve it in 11 or 12 years, how can we know it will ever be solved?”

DHS’s report saying hundreds of thousands of people remained in the United States after having overstayed their visas drew complaints from both parties, but Sessions in particular.

“That is a population of individuals that is larger than any city in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina,” Sessions said. Healy replied that about 3,000 of the people who had overstayed their visas were under investigation, a statistic Sessions cited to argue that President Obama’s team has made no effort to implement the system or to deport people who overstay their visas, as long as those people “keep their nose clean” and do nothing to draw the attention of law enforcement or counterterrorism officials.

He said the lack of a biometric exit system was part of a broader failure by the Obama administration to implement federal immigration law.

“Our executive branch is on strike against the will of the American people,” Sessions said. “Simply put, there is no border at all if we don’t enforce our visa rules.”

****

Hold on, there is more…

Administration eases visa rules for travelers visiting terror hotspots

FNC: The Obama administration on Thursday eased visa rules for certain European travelers who have visited terror hotspots in the Middle East and Africa, triggering a backlash from congressional lawmakers who sought the restrictions for security reasons.

Moments after the announcement, two key Republicans declared the administration is “blatantly breaking the law” – a law that President Obama signed – by implementing the changes.

“This is not a difference of opinion over statutory interpretation, it is a clear contradiction of the law and the agreement we reached with the White House,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., author of the bill, said in a statement.

The revised requirements announced Thursday pertain to changes passed by Congress in the Visa Waiver Program.

Lawmakers had sought new restrictions to tighten up the program – which allows visa-free travel for residents of eligible countries — in order to prevent Europeans who have joined ISIS from entering the United States. Under the newly passed Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, nationals of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan as well as other travelers who have visited those countries since Mar. 1, 2011 now must apply for a visa in order to travel to the U.S.

The administration implemented those changes Thursday — but with some changes of its own.

Under the revised requirements, some Europeans who have traveled to those four countries in the last five years may still be allowed to travel to the United States without obtaining a visa if they meet certain criteria.

The administration announced it will use its waiver authority — granted to it in the legislation — to give waivers to travelers who traveled to the terror hotspots as journalists, for work with humanitarian agencies or on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations and sub-national governments on official duty.

Further, an additional waiver was announced for people who have traveled to Iran “for legitimate business-related purposes” since the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal in July. The administration offers waivers for individuals who have traveled to Iraq for business as well.

Republicans reacted angrily to the waivers, saying the Obama administration had exploited the limited authority and has compromised national security.

“President Obama and his administration’s decision to abuse their limited waiver authority and allow scores of people who have traveled to or are dual nationals of countries like Iraq and Syria flies in the face of reason and congressional intent,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement.

“The Obama Administration is essentially rewriting the law by blowing wide open a small window of discretion that Congress gave it for law enforcement and national security reasons,” Goodlatte said.

Under the visa program itself, citizens of 38 countries, mostly in Europe, are generally allowed to travel to the United States without applying for a visa. But they still have to submit biographical information to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA.

The Homeland Security Department said waivers for some ESTA applicants will be granted on a “case-by-case” basis. Those travelers who are denied visa-free travel can still apply for visa through a U.S. embassy in their home country.

The new restrictions had previously been criticized by the Iranian government which suggested the U.S. might be violating the nuclear deal by penalizing legitimate business travel to the country.

Airlifting Italian Goats into Afghanistan?

Posted on by

Lawmakers to Pentagon: Goats, Carpets and Jewelry Helped Afghanistan How?

At a Senate hearing this week, lawmakers questioned whether a Pentagon business task force had accomplished anything worthwhile.

ProPublica: Is it true that rare Italian goats were airlifted to Afghanistan?

Did Defense Department employees go to carpet tradeshows in Europe? How about on jewelry-related trips to India?

These might seem like unusual questions for the Pentagon, but lawmakers at a hearing Wednesday were trying to figure out how, exactly, a task force spent about $638 million on economic development in Afghanistan.

And more importantly, as Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., put it: “Was it worth it?”

The readiness subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn’t get many answers.

“That’s the big question, and it’s the right one,” was all Brian McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, could offer.

During two hours of questioning, he provided few specifics, allowing, “It’s a little early to say” whether the now-defunct Task Force for Business and Stability Operations had been successful.

The task force — a “very unusual animal” McKeon called it — was led by civilian business experts and aimed to develop the Afghan economy by jumpstarting the private sector.

The committee called the hearing after the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, published several damning reports about wasteful spending by the task force. It operated mostly outside the traditional bounds of government bureaucracy — and, SIGAR said, without much oversight.

John Sopko, the inspector general, testified that, so far, his agency has found that the Pentagon’s task force had a “scattershot approach to economic development” and there was no “credible evidence showing” that its efforts worked.

The task force was initially launched in Iraq before moving to Afghanistan in 2010. But even in Iraq, it was beset with problems, Sopko told the subcommittee. These issues were detailed in at least three official reports. The Pentagon and task force members should have learned from their experience in Iraq, he said, but they repeated the same mistakes.

His conclusions echo a yearlong ProPublica investigation into Afghanistan reconstruction that found a widespread failure to apply lessons from Iraq was in part to blame for upwards of $17 billion in waste.

McKeon put up little defense of the task force beyond disputing SIGAR’s estimated $43 million cost of a controversial natural gas station and claims that his office had been uncooperative.

He said he was “skeptical that the Department of Defense is the natural home” for economic development efforts.

Lawmakers agreed. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, said it was a job better suited for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

McKeon said his office was struggling to come up with answers about the task force’s activities, because it shut down in March and most of its employees left the Defense Department — an argument the lawmakers found unpersuasive.

McKeon was unable to answer even the most basic questions about how all the money was spent.

The Pentagon, for the most part, had records for how money was spent by industry sector, but not necessarily for how support costs broke down for all the individual projects, he said. (Although, those goats? The task force spent $6 million bringing in nine blond ones from Italy and building a farm in an attempt to launch a thriving cashmere industry, according to SIGAR. This project hasn’t been evaluated yet for effectiveness.)

Questioning at the hearing didn’t get any easier from there, and, McKeon had, at times, an almost painful lack of information. Clearly uncomfortable and stuck with a limited script, he reiterated several times that he hadn’t been in charge of the task force, since he only took over the job in 2014.

Ayotte, who chairs the subcommittee, asked if there were metrics to judge the projects.

“I haven’t seen metrics,” McKeon said.

Then Ayotte asked why the task force eschewed living on a military base and opted instead for private villas and security that cost $150 million — a decision that ate up nearly 24 percent of all the money spent?

“We’re still digging” for an answer on that, McKeon said, but he added that he thought those arrangements were necessary to show businesses that they could operate safely in Afghanistan.

So, Ayotte asked, did any contracts result “because we spent $150 million on villas?”

“I wouldn’t make that claim,” McKeon said.

Later in the hearing, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said the entire concept behind the villas defied common sense. The need to spend millions on security just to keep employees safe couldn’t possibly entice businesses to set up shop.

“Do you see the fallacy of the logic there?” she asked.

The subcommittee asked SIGAR to do a full financial audit of all the task force activities since the Pentagon could provide so few details.

The senators were also concerned with how the Pentagon stonewalled SIGAR’s inquiries on the task force.

SIGAR and the Pentagon had been in a public tiff over access to records and the Pentagon’s insistence that documents be reviewed in a special “reading room.” Despite claiming the reading room was required to safeguard information in general, the Pentagon only restricted task force documents in that way.

But ahead of the hearing, the Pentagon reversed course and handed over a 100-gigabyte hard drive last week that it said contained all the task force information SIGAR had requested.

However, Sopko said “the data provided is substantially inadequate” and forensic accountants are examining it to see if anything was manipulated. McKeon said he was committed to providing SIGAR with all they needed.

Much of the hearing was spent bickering about the actual cost of the compressed natural gas station, which has few customers and is barely being used. Part of the problem: The average Afghan would have to spend more than a year’s salary to convert a car to run on compressed gas.

McKeon did not defend the gas station as a concept, but rather the reported cost.

Last year, SIGAR said it cost $43 million, including $30 million on overhead. This week the Pentagon disputed that number, saying the real cost was under $10 million.

The question comes down to overhead cost, which the Pentagon has been unable to accurately calculate because of poor recordkeeping, Sopko said. He defended SIGAR, saying it reported the best number it had at the time, which came from the Pentagon itself and hadn’t been disputed by the Defense Department until the day before the hearing.

It was unclear by the end of the hearing how much the gas station actually cost or whether anyone would be able to make that determination.

McCaskill had little patience for the cost debate.

“I don’t care if it was $2.9 million or $200 million,” she said. The project was “dumb on its face.”

She said she wanted to know who had “made the brilliant decision that this was a good idea to put a natural gas station in Afghanistan,” so she could “find out what the person was on that day.”

What Oath Did John Kerry Take?

Posted on by

John Kerry was also in the military during Viet Nam and his record there is dubious at best. After discarding his war medal and speaking of the shame and sham of the Viet Nam war he went on to politics. He has taken the Oath of office more than once. Surely at some point he would GET the point. But now, he has officially in his own words crossed the Rubicon.

Something about ‘all enemies foreign and domestic’ come to mind and both John Kerry and Josh Earnest both admit that Iran has long-standing support for terrorism.

TheHill: Some money from Iran’s sanctions relief is likely to go to terrorists, Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged Thursday. Still, he said, he has yet to see that happen, adding there will be consequences if Iran uses the money to fund terrorism.

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he said in an interview with CNBC, referring to the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Over the weekend, the United States lifted sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program after it certified Tehran was in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

Lawmakers opposed to the deal have argued that the billions of dollars Iran gets after sanctions are lifted will be funneled into supporting terrorist organizations.

In an interview from the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Kerry conceded the United States can’t prevent that from happening.

“You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented,” he said. “But I can tell you this: Right now, we are not seeing the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor at this point in time.”

Of the $100 billion to $150 billion in sanctions relief, Kerry estimated Iran would end up with $55 million because some of the money is obligated to foreign debts.

He later told a group of reporters on the sidelines of the forum that the Revolutionary Guards are “already complaining that they are not getting the money,” according to The Associated Press.

“If we catch them funding terrorism, they’re going to have a problem in the U.S. Congress and other people, obviously,” he said.

A group of Republican senators vowed Thursday to introduce new sanctions should the administration not take a tough stance against the country.

Enter Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson:

FreeBeacon: White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday it was “entirely likely” and “even expected” that Iran will continue to support terrorism as it receives tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief through the Iran nuclear deal.

The deal brokered by the Obama administration and other world powers gives Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, $100 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for compliance with the agreement meant to stop the rogue regime from getting nuclear weapons.

After Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged  Thursday that “some” Iran deal money would go to terrorists, CBS reporter Margaret Brennan asked Earnest at the White House briefing whether he agreed.

“I think that reflects his rather logical conclusion that a nation that supports terrorism may use some of the money that’s coming into the country to further support terrorism,” Earnest said. “The thing that’s important for people to recognize is that critics of this agreement often exaggerate the value of the sanctions relief that Iran will obtain, and they often overlook the rather severe economic priorities that are badly underfunded inside of Iran.”

Earnest said the White House had been honest about acknowledging that the nuclear deal would not assuage their concerns about Iran’s “bad behavior.”

“It is entirely likely, I think it’s even expected, that Iran will continue to support terrorism, but because of Iran’s intention that we assess to continue to support terrorism, that’s what makes it so important that we prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Earnest said.

“To be clear, what you’re saying is while, some may conclude, and it would be logical to conclude, that some monies may flow to groups labeled terrorists, you think you can mitigate the threat, but you do say it could flow there,” Brennan said.

“Uh, well, we’ve been candid about that possibility, and that assessment is drawn from Iran’s longstanding support for terrorism,” Earnest said. “Again, that longstanding support for terrorism is what motivated us to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

A sample listing of Iran’s terror history is found here.

Perspective: The Real Violation of Hillary with SAP on Her Server

Posted on by

Humm, was Hillary ever in a SCIF?

(Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility)

The smoking gun?  

By Anthony DeChristopher

TheHill: Special Access Programs (SAP) is a game changer.  It is now undeniably clear that the results of the FBI investigation will be the end of one of two things:  Hillary’s bid for the White House or the legitimacy of the FBI—at least when it comes to prosecuting cases on the mishandling of classified material.

In 2006, a Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) from my company was deployed to Afghanistan.  Theirs was a particular mission that differed from the combat missions the typical ODAs were conducting at that time.  Everyone on that team maintained a Top Secret Sensitive and Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) clearance and was “read-on” to their special program.  A few months into their deployment, their Intelligence Sergeant lost a thumb-drive that possessed classified information.  A week later the thumb drive was found for sale at a local bazaar.

In response to the events, Col. Ken Allard (ret.) stated, “You’ve got a situation in which the U.S. is going to be forced to change an awful lot of its operational techniques.”

Beyond the compromise of classified information, a lot did change.  New protocols for the handling of classified material were established, and the transportation of classified material on thumb drives was strictly forbidden.  The knee jerk reaction even went as far as to disable USB ports on our work computers—in case we forgot.

Since then I’ve deployed to several locations where, at times, we operated in small teams with only non-secure cellphones with which to communicate.  We often found ourselves with a lot of information that needed to be sent up in reports, but due to the nature of our mission we were forced to sit on it for a few days until we were able to type it up and send it through a secure medium.  I’d be lying if I said we didn’t concoct elaborate plans with “foolproof” ways to communicate the information over non-secure channels, but in the end, no one was willing to take the risk of our “fail-safes” failing.

As more information from Hillary Clinton’s server has been made available, it is clear that the contents of the server contained Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), and Signal Intelligence (SIGINT).  Understanding that much of the information has been retroactively classified, there are a few facts that are tough to grasp—at least from the perspective of an intelligence practitioner.

First, when imagery that is classified SECRET//NOFORN (no foreign national) is viewed, regardless of the absence of classification markings, it is distinctly evident. Second, any documents that contain or reference HUMINT is always classified SECRET, and if specific names of sources or handlers are mentioned, they are at a minimum SECRET//NOFORN.  Third, SIGINT is always classified at the TS level.  It’s not uncommon for some SI to be downgraded and shared over SECRET mediums, however, it is highly unlikely that a Secretary of State would receive downgraded intelligence.  Finally, SAP intelligence has been discovered on Clinton’s private server, and many are now calling this the smoking gun.  SAP is a specialized management system of additional security controls designed to protect SAR or Special Access Required.  SAR has to do with extremely perishable operational methods and capabilities, and only selected individuals who are “read on” or “indoctrinated” are permitted access to these programs.  The mishandling of SAP can cause catastrophic damage to current collection methods, techniques and personnel.

In other words, if you have worked with classified material for more than a day, it seems highly implausible that someone could receive any of the aforementioned over an un-secure medium without alarm bells sounding.  However, reading about a Special Access Program on an unclassified device would make anyone even remotely familiar with intelligence mess their pantsuit.

With more damming information being released almost weekly now, it’s interesting that during last Sunday’s Democratic debate, Clinton resoundingly stated: “No one is too big for jail.”Although the context was referencing bank CEOs and Hedge fund managers, the obvious correlation left many scratching their heads and wondering—did Hillary Clinton just say, “I dare you” to the FBI?”

DeChristopher is a 9-year veteran of the United States Army Special Forces.  He holds an M.A. in Strategic Security Studies from National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs with a concentration in Irregular Warfare.  He currently works as an Independent Intelligence Consultant.

***

The State Department Inspector General who investigated the Hillary server, had security clearance but to complete the assignment to investigate deeper the issues and data on the server, he had to go through and additional process to get the highest security clearance. It must also be mentioned that some top intelligence community professionals are now part of the investigation and they are in fact stationed to do nothing but investigate the actual communications and determine what was, should have been classified even though ‘some’ communications had designations removed.

****

FNC: Some of Hillary Clinton’s emails on her private server contained information so secret that senior lawmakers who oversee the State Department cannot read them without fulfilling additional security requirements, Fox News has learned.

The emails in question, as Fox News first reported earlier this week, contained intelligence classified at a level beyond “top secret.” Because of this designation, not all the lawmakers on key committees reviewing the case have high enough clearances.

A source with knowledge of the intelligence review told Fox News that senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, despite having high-level clearances, are among those not authorized to read the intelligence from so-called “special access programs” without taking additional security steps — like signing new non-disclosure agreements.

These programs are highly restricted to protect intelligence community sources and methods.

As Fox News previously reported, a Jan. 14 letter from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III to senior lawmakers said an intelligence review identified “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence from “special access programs” (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the Democratic presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

Fox News is told that the reviewers who handled the SAP intelligence identified in Clinton’s emails had to sign additional non-disclosure agreements even though they already have the highest level of clearance — known as TS/SCI or Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented information. This detail was first reported by NBC News.

This alone seems to undercut the former secretary of state’s and other officials’ claims that the material is “innocuous.”

In an interview with NPR, Clinton claimed the latest IG finding doesn’t change anything and suggested it was politically motivated.

“This seems to me to be, you know, another effort to inject this into the campaign, it’s another leak,” she said. “I’m just going to leave it up to the professionals at the Justice Department because nothing that this says changes the fact that I never sent or received material marked classified.”

Despite Clinton’s claims, it is the content that is classified; the markings on the documents do not affect that.

A former Justice Department official said there is another problem — warnings from State Department IT employees and others that she should be using a government account.

“If you have a situation where someone was knowingly violating the law and that they knew that what they were doing was prohibited by federal law because other people were saying, you’re violating the law, knock it off, and they disregarded that advice and they went ahead, that’s a very difficult case to defend,” Thomas Dupree said.