Democrat Officials’ Cell Phones Hacked

Report: Dem officials cell phones hacked.

TheHill: The FBI is investigating the hacked cell phones of several Democratic Party officials with the belief the attacks are connected to a spate of breaches at party networks and under the assumption that the Russia is behind the hacking, Reuters reports.

The phones, says the report, were hacked within “the past month or so”.

That would put the timing of the breach soon after hackers, widely suspected to be Russian intelligence, were booted from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  The DCCC breach, in turn, took place shortly after the same hackers were kicked out of the Democratic National Committee.

Many members of Congress have grown frustrated with the administration not formally accusing Russia of the hacking spree, including House Homeland Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), who have both asked Obama to acknowledge Russia is behind the attacks.

In part from Reuters:

The revelation underscores the widening scope of the U.S. criminal inquiry into cyber attacks on Democratic Party organizations, including the presidential campaign of its candidate, former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

U.S. officials have said they believe those attacks were orchestrated by hackers backed by the Russian government, possibly to disrupt the Nov. 8 election in which Clinton faces Republican Party candidate Donald Trump. Russia has dismissed allegations it was involved in cyber attacks on the organizations.

The more recent attempted phone hacking also appears to have been conducted by Russian-backed hackers, two people with knowledge of the situation said.

Federal Bureau of Investigation representatives had no immediate comment, and a Clinton campaign spokesman said they were unaware of the suspected phone hacking. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) did not respond to a request for comment, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had no immediate response.

FBI agents had approached a small number of Democratic Party officials to discuss concerns their mobile phones may have been compromised by hackers, people involved said. It was not clear how many people were targeted by the hack or whether they included members of Congress, a possibility that could raise additional security concerns for U.S. officials.

If they were successful, hackers could have been able to acquire a wide range of data from targeted cell phones, including call data, text messages, emails, photos and contact lists, one person with knowledge of the situation said.

“In a sense, your phone is your office brain,” said Bruce Schneier, a cyber security expert with Resilient, an IBM company, which is not involved in the investigation. “It’s incredibly intimate.”

“Anything that’s on your phone, if your phone is hacked, the hacker can get it.”

The FBI has asked some of those whose phones were believed to have hacked to turn over their phones so that investigators could “image” them, creating a copy of the device and related data.

U.S. investigators are looking into whether hackers used data stolen from servers run by Democratic organizations or the private emails of their employees to get access to cell phones, one person said.

Hackers previously targeted servers used by the DNC, the body that sets strategy for the party, and the DCCC, which raises money for Democrats running for seats in the House of Representatives, officials have said.

Clinton said during Monday’s presidential debate there was “no doubt” Russia has sponsored hacks against “all kinds of organizations in our country” and mentioned Russian President Vladimir Putin by name.

“Putin is playing a really tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee,” Clinton said.

Trump countered that there was no definitive proof that Russia had sponsored the hacks of Democratic organizations.

“I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC,” he said. “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people.”

Hillary’s Aides Violated the Immunity Agreements…

 Heather Samuelson Image result for john bentel state department

We have come to understand the FBI was never going to take the Hillary email/server investigation seriously and the notion of lack of ‘intent’ was just another cover. Why? Well when the Barack Obama used as pseudonym to communicate with Hillary on yet another non dot gov email account and had at least another 22 email communications, the executive protection was applied. So, this FBI investigation was just a formal gesture.

Providing immunity to at least 5 witnesses involved was not really necessary but since no one trusts anyone else in Washington DC, Beth Wilkinson the lawyer of record for Hillary’s inner circle demanded immunity and those agreements do have limitations. But is anyone asking about the limitations or violations of immunity agreements? Yes…

***

Clinton confidant’s immunity deal looms over debate: Jonathan Turley

FBI appears to have undermined its own investigation with ill-considered witness agreements.

USAToday: When FBI Director James B. Comey announced that there would be no criminal charges in the Clinton email scandal, there was an outcry by many who saw glaring contradictions, attempts to destroy evidence, and knowing failures to protect classified or sensitive information.  At the time, I acknowledged that Comey’s decision was understandable and, while criminal charges might have been possible, this was not out of bounds of prosecutorial discretion. However, the news this week of a previously undisclosed immunity deal with a top Clinton aide raises serious questions over the handling of the FBI investigation.

The latest recipient of an immunity deal from the Justice Department is one of Clinton’s closest aides and a figure at the heart of the email scandal, Cheryl Mills. She joins two other central figures in benefiting from such deals: former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano and tech specialist Paul Combetta. In addition to at least two other immunized witnesses according to the Associated Press, they represent the big three of officials involved in the underlying allegations of Clinton’s potential criminal conduct. Their collective immunization is baffling.

For the Obama Administration, the criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee and its prior secretary of State came with a heightened level of public scrutiny and skepticism. Many doubted that the administration would seriously pursue the Clintons, a family of political royalty in both Democratic and establishment circles. The easiest way for prosecutors to scuttle a criminal case is to immunize those people who are at the greatest risk of criminal indictment. Often prosecutors will avoid immunity deals in favor of offering plea bargains to key players, tying their cooperation against others to reduced sentences. Although a witness can lose an immunity deal by withholding evidence or lying, a witness can undermine cases against superiors by tailoring their accounts or memories to avoid statements showing intent or knowledge.

Before the disclosure of the Mills immunity deal, the two prior deals were curious given the evidence against both Pagliano and Combetta. Pagliano set up the notorious private server and later joined Clinton at the State Department, where various people raised objections to her use of unsecured communications. If Pagliano was problematic, Combetta’s immunity deal was perplexing. Combetta used a product called BleachBit to eradicate evidence of Clinton emails after a telephone conference with Clinton staffers. When he used the product, he admitted that he knew that Congress had issued a subpoena ordering the preservation of the evidence. Then, this month, it was alleged by a “Twitter sleuth that Combetta, acting under the alias “stonetear,” solicited advice on how to change email records to remove a “VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address.”  Either Combetta did not disclose this effort in violation of his immunity deal or the Justice Department effectively removed a serious threat of indictment though the agreement. Despite immunity deals pledging cooperation with all parts of the government, both Pagliano and Combetta have refused to answer questions from Congress, and Pagliano is facing a contempt sanction.

Mills is a participant in key emails and features prominently in allegations of destroyed emails. She was alleged to have been informed repeatedly of the dangers to national security, particularly regarding Clinton’s use of a personal BlackBerry. She was also central in the deletion of tens of thousands of emails that Clinton claimed were purely personal and not work related.

Many of those emails are now known to have discussed official issues and potentially embarrassing disclosures. Mills’ role in the later investigations has also been controversial. Surprisingly, defense attorney Beth Wilkinson  agreed to jointly represent various former aides, including not just Mills but Deputy Chief Jake Sullivan, Mills’ deputy Heather Samuelson, and Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. Wilkinson is a very accomplished lawyer and there is no evidence of unethical acts. However, attorneys rarely represent parties with potential conflicts of interest and the agreement allowed for a single attorney to monitor the consistency of aides in their accounts.

The joint representation of the Clinton aides increased the chance for a uniform account in the controversy. Making this even more concerning is that Mills was allowed by the FBI to sit in on the interviews with Clinton, despite that fact that she was a key witness herself in the investigation. Mills, who is a lawyer, did not hold a legal position at the State Department and should have been excluded from the interviews. Finally, Mills has continuing interests in the election of Hillary Clinton, a development that would place her at the very top of the government. 

Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity,, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate. Mills appears repeatedly at critical moments as one of the most senior figures making decisions or monitoring events, including being informed as Clinton chief of staff of the search for emails by the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information demand in 2012 (three years before the disclosure of Clinton’s use of a private email server). In such circumstances, immunity can amount to impunity. Immunity does not remove the threat of prosecution, but it certainly reduces that threat, while the value of defending prior benefactors or loyalties can remain. Given the overlapping immunity deals, many will now find it unsurprising that Comey did not find evidence of “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty . . .  or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Comey removed the greatest threat that could have been used to get two underlings to implicate senior officials, and then gave immunity to the senior official most at risk of a charge. In the land of the immunized, the degree of cooperation can sometimes be as difficult to establish as the truth.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

 Immunity Process Denoted by the Justice Department

9-23.100 – Witness Immunity—Generally

This chapter contains the Department’s policy and procedures for seeking “use immunity” under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-6005. Sections 6001 to 6005 provide a mechanism by which the government may apply to the court for an order granting a witness limited immunity in all judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings when the witness asserts his or her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. (Section 6003 covers court and grand jury proceedings, Section 6004 covers administrative hearings, and Section 6005 covers congressional proceedings.)

See the Criminal Resource Manual at 716 through 719, for an overview of the differences between the various types of immunity, including use immunity, derivative use immunity, transactional immunity and informal immunity.

NOTE: Although Title 21 of the United States Code contains similar immunity provisions to those contained in Title 18, the Department of Justice utilizes only those provisions contained in Title 18.


9-23.110 – Statutory Authority to Compel Testimony

Section 6003 of Title 18, United States Code, empowers a United States Attorney, after obtaining the approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice (DOJ), to seek a court order to compel testimony of a witness appearing in court proceedings or before the grand jury. Additional information regarding the approval process is set forth in USAM 9-23.130, below, and the Criminal Resource Manual at 720.


9-23.130 – Approval by Assistant Attorney General to Compel Testimony

The Attorney General has designated the Assistant Attorneys General and Deputy Assistant Attorneys General of the Criminal, Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions to review (and approve or deny) requests for immunity (viz., authorization to seek compulsion orders) in matters assigned to their respective divisions (28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.175), although this approval is still subject to Criminal Division clearance. This authority extends to requests for immunity from administrative agencies under 18 U.S.C. § 6004. This delegation also applies to the power of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 6005 to apply to the district court to defer the issuance of an order compelling the testimony of a witness in a congressional proceeding.

NOTE: All requests for immunity, including those whose subject matter is assigned to a Division other than the Criminal Division, must be submitted to the Criminal Division, and no approval may be granted unless the Criminal Division indicates that it has no objection to the proposed grant of immunity (28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.175).

Requests for authorization to seek to compel testimony should be processed as described in the Criminal Resource Manual at 720, using the form contained in the Criminal Resource Manual at 721.

Obtaining the Court Order Criminal Resource Manual at 723
Expiration of Authority to Compel Criminal Resource Manual at 724
Use of Immunized Testimony by Sentencing Court Criminal Resource Manual at 725
Steps to Avoid Taint Criminal Resource Manual at 726
Civil Contempt Criminal Resource Manual at 727
Criminal Contempt Criminal Resource Manual at 728

 

[cited in USAM 9-23.110Criminal Resource Manual 721]


9-23.140 – Authority to Initiate Immunity Requests

Assistant United States Attorneys, with the approval of the United States Attorney or, in his or her absence, a supervisory Assistant United States Attorney, and Department attorneys, with the approval of an appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Assistant Attorney General of DOJ, may initiate requests to compel testimony under the use immunity statute.


9-23.210 – Decision to Request Immunity—The Public Interest

Section 6003(b) of Title 18, United States Code, authorizes a United States Attorney to request immunity when, in his/her judgment, the testimony or other information that is expected to be obtained from the witness “may be necessary to the public interest.” Some of the factors that should be weighed in making this judgment include:

  1. The importance of the investigation or prosecution to effective enforcement of the criminal laws;
  2. The value of the person’s testimony or information to the investigation or prosecution;
  3. The likelihood of prompt and full compliance with a compulsion order, and the effectiveness of available sanctions if there is no such compliance;
  4. The person’s relative culpability in connection with the offense or offenses being investigated or prosecuted, and his or her criminal history;
  5. The possibility of successfully prosecuting the person prior to compelling his or her testimony;
  6. The likelihood of adverse collateral consequences to the person if he or she testifies under a compulsion order.

These factors are not intended to be all-inclusive or to require a particular decision in a particular case. They are, however, representative of the kinds of factors that should be considered when deciding whether to seek immunity.

APT 28: Russian Cyber Attacks Britain and Germany as Well as U.S.

APT 28:

TechTimes: FireEye said in a white paper they released in 2014 that APT 28 had launched attacks against military and political organizations beginning in 2007. Other targets that the Kremlin have special interest in include the NATO alliance offices and government officials in Georgia. In these attacks, the group had reportedly gathered “malware samples with Russian language settings during working hours consistent with the time zone of Russia’s major cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.”

The APT 28 used the same tools and hit the same targets performed by the Pawn Storm hackers that were described by security firm Trend Micro in a separate report. According to the company, the Pawn Storm hacking group recently increased their activity and targeted bloggers who conducted interviews with President Barack Obama. There is also speculation that the group had stolen online credentials of a military correspondent of an unnamed major publication in the U.S. More here.

 

RUSSIA’S HACKERS HIT BRITAIN

Putin’s cyber warriors the Fancy Bears targeted government websites and the BBC in the run-in to last year’s election

Defensive measures deployed to thwart the attack by Fancy Bears after it was discovered by spy agency GCHQ

TheSun: A RUSSIAN cyber attack on British government departments and TV broadcasters in the run-up to last year’s general election was thwarted by intelligence agencies, it emerged today.

GCHQ boffins halted the “imminent threat” by Kremlin-backed hackers Fancy Bears – the group behind the leak of Olympic athletes’ doping files.

Dimbleby on the BBC election show

Russian hackers targeted government departments and broadcasters including the BBC in the run-up to the 2015 general election.
***
The revelation of the attack on the British election comes amid concerns Russian hackers are attempting to disrupt the US presidential race.Last week another Russian group, DC Leaks, hacked White House servers to obtain what appeared to be Michelle Obama’s passport.

Fancy Bears planned to attack every Whitehall server including the Home Office, Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, security officials told the Sunday Times.

They were also targeting all the main UK broadcasters including the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky.

cyber-caliphate

Getty Image: An attack on France’s TV5Monde network claimed on behalf od ISIS by the ‘Cyber-Caliphate’ was traced to the Fancy Bears in Moscow
***

The GCHQ eavesdropping agency uncovered the threat after probing the group’s successful attack against TV5Monde, one of France’s biggest TV networks, in April last year.

It was feared ISIS had reached new levels in its ability to wage cyber war after all 11 of the French broadcasters channels were take off air and its website was flooded with jihadist propaganda.

Related reading: Russia ‘was behind German parliament hack’

But GCHQ traced the hack – claimed by a group calling themselves the “Cyber-Caliphate” – back to Moscow and then uncovered they were planning to hit Britain next.

Analysts feared that the Putin-sponsored group could “embarrass” pillars of the British state and took defensive measures to protect government departments.

Senior security officials are also understood to have warned the TV networks so they could defend themselves.

One security official said: “We had information, and it could have been activated, which is why it was an imminent threat.

“They certainly could have defaced a website for propaganda reasons and they could have possibly taken it down.”

It is the first known threat by the Kremlin-backed hackers to interfere in the British political process.

News of the attack comes after Fancy Bears published details of athletes including Mo Farah and Sir Bradley Wiggins hacked from the global anti-doping watchdog Wada.

Papers revealed they were given medical exemption certificates to use banned drugs.

Fancy Bears website

AP:Associated Press: The Fancy Bears leaked confidential medical filed on dozens of Olympic athletes after hacking the anti-doping body Wada
***

In July the hackers were blamed for the leak of 20,000 damaging emails from the US Democratic National Committee – just as it was about to confirm Hillary Clinton as presidential candidate.

The intervention was seen a Moscow’s attempt to boost Donald Trump’s chances in the election.

The group is thought to be behind a shutdown of the national grid in Ukraine and attacks on the governments of Syria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

Fancy Bears also targeted the BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Reuters, CNN, Farnborough arms fair, defence contractor Northrop Grumman, one cyber security report says.

Separately a list published by security experts at the PwC consultancy shows 245 apparent Fancy Bears attacks on targets including Nato, the Chilean military, Apple, Google, the German ministry of defence and the Polish and Hungarian governments.

There is no suggestion any of these has been successful although one firm on the list, Yahoo, last week admitted the personal information of 500million users had been stolen by what it called “state-sponsored” hackers in late 2014.

****

BroadbandTVNews: The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky were involved in what David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, described the incident as a “possible imminent threat” to the UK. The Sunday Times reports that Anderson said the government’s monitoring agency GCHQ “deployed a capability to protect government networks from this cyber-attacker”.

The information was revealed in a previously unnoticed report released in July. Broadcasters were warned of the potential threat and advised to take action.

British security officials have told the paper the group plotting the attack was Fancy Bears, also known as APT28 and Sofacy, the same group that last April brought down the French international broadcaster TV5 Monde.

Within a few seconds of the April 8th attack, all of TV5’s channels stopped broadcasting, and it also lost control of its sites and social profiles. On screen messages declared allegiance to ISIS.

7700 Terrorists at the Southern Border

Oh….another leak and no word from the Department of Homeland Security….

Leaked FBI Data Reveal 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in USA in One Year; Border States Most Targeted

Breitbart: Leaked documents with sensitive FBI data exclusively obtained by Breitbart Texas reveal that 7,712 terrorist encounters occurred within the United States in one year and that many of those encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border. The incidents are characterized as “Known or Suspected Terrorist Encounters.” Some of the encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border at ports-of-entry and some occurred in between, indicating that persons known or reasonably suspected of being terrorists attempted to sneak into the U.S. across the border. In all, the encounters occurred in higher numbers in border states.

Some of the documents pertain to the entire U.S., while others focus specifically on the state of Arizona. The documents are labeled, “UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE” and contain data from the FBI-administered Terrorist Screening Center, the organization maintaining the Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the “Terror Watch List.”

 CNN

The leaked FBI data are contained in a fusion center’s educational materials, specifically the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center’s (ACTIC) “Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) Encounters Briefing” covering from July 20 2015 through July 20 2016. The leaked documents are composed of 10 individual pages, but Breitbart Texas chose to release only nine of them due to page 10 containing contact information for ACTIC.

Page Two of the documents contains a map of the entire U.S. with the numbers of encounters per state. The states with the highest encounters are all border states. Texas, California, and Arizona–all states with a shared border with Mexico–rank high in encounters.

Page Three shows a map of where the encounters occurred in the state of Arizona. The majority from this map occurred in Phoenix, a major destination point for people who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border. The map also shows that encounters occurred at ports-of-entry, likely from persons either walking up and asking for asylum or from Sinaloa cartel attempts to smuggle them into the U.S. in vehicles. Most significantly, the map shows that many of the encounters occurred near the border outside of ports-of-entry, indicating that persons were attempting to sneak into the U.S.

Page Six shows a pie chart indicating that the majority of encounters in Arizona were with Islamic known or suspected terrorists, both Sunni and Shi’a. Eighty-nine encounters were Sunni, 56 were Shi’a, 70 were “Other International Terrorist Groups or Affiliates,” and only 52 were with “Domestic Terrorism.”

Page 7 contains definitions to help understand the maps.

Breitbart Texas provides the leaked documents and data below: (Go here to see all pages)

Page 1 of 9 by Brandon Darby on Scribd

Related reading:

2012: Inside a secret U.S. Terrorist Screening Center

(CBS News) The Terrorist Screening Center is one of the U.S. government’s most secure buildings. It is home to the nation’s top secret terrorist databases.

For CBS to gain access, no sound could be recorded and only one agent could be identified, Tim Healy.

He is the FBI veteran who currently runs the center.

“We are the only country in the world that has a terrorist watch list.”

The center was founded in 2003 in response to the 9/11 attacks. Their job is to gather intelligence about possible terrorists both in the United States and abroad.

The watch list contains about 520,000 people world wide suspected of having ties to terrorism. Names on the list are added and subtracted daily, but who in on the list remains a secret.

“We don’t confirm anyone’s existence on the watch list,” said Healy.

In addition to the watch list, Healy oversees a second more critical list, the “No Fly List”.

“If you have information that the guy wants to blow up a plane, I can keep him off a plane,” said Healy. “If I’ve [got] information he wants to conduct a terrorist attack, I can keep him off a plane.”

There are about 20,000 people on the “No Fly List”. Seven-hundred of them are Americans and they are considered too much of a risk to allow onto an airplane.

Names on the various watch lists surface each day in calls to the center. For example, each time a police officer run someone’s ID through a computer, that person is checked against the lists.

“So if you are speeding, you get pulled over, they’ll query that name. And if they are encountering a known or suspected terrorist, it will pop up and say call the Terror Screening Center,” said Healy. “So now the officer on the street knows he may be dealing with a known or suspected terrorist.”

The center averages about 55 encounters a day from people who are known or suspected terrorists.

In most cases, according to Healy, the encounters do not produce arrests, but they do provide additional intelligence.

“[The] location of where the guy’s going. What he’s doing [and] additional associates that the subject is hanging around.”

Throughout the Terrorist Screening Center are placed artifacts from various terrorist attacks including Oklahoma City federal building, the USS Cole bombing, and the World Trade Centers. All sober reminders of how important their work is.

For Tim Healy and the workers of the Terrorist Screening Center, failure is not an option. They measure their success by what doesn’t happen.

*****

On September 16, 2003, the President signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive-6 (HSPD-6), requiring the establishment of an organization to “consolidate the Government’s approach to terrorism screening and provide for the appropriate and lawful use of Terrorist Information in screening processes.” Specifically, the Attorney General was directed to create a new organization to consolidate terrorist watch lists and provide 24-hour, 7-day a week operational support for federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign government as well as private sector screening across the country and around the world. As a result of this presidential directive, the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) was created. As of the end of fiscal year (FY) 2004, the TSC was a $27 million organization with approximately 175 staff.

Hey Comey, Your Friday Night DocDump Proves Intent

One has to wonder if James Comey even read the 302’s he approved for release late Friday. Seems all kinds of people were in fact sounding alarms and telling the truth but the FBI did not see anything related to intent? Wow….Hillary’s own close and long time friend as well as attorney, Cheryl Mills is at the core of this whole matter, but yet we are told by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, Jason Chaffetz that lil’ old Cheryl was given immunity. Full immunity? Good question, has anyone seen the immunity document granted by the Department of Justice? No…not yet.

 

All of us can officially declare that we have lost any hope for the Department of Justice practicing good law and sadly we can say that the Director of the FBI, James Comey too was part of this collusion. So, sit back and read these items if you can stand it. Fair warning…. this IS INTENT.

We will start with a Reuters piece in part:

A State Department employee, whose name was redacted, told investigators they believed senior department officials interfered with the screening of Clinton’s emails for public release last year in a way that helped Clinton.

The employee, who worked on the screening process, said there was pressure to obscure the fact they were finding classified information in the messages. John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement the department “strongly disputes” the claim of interference. Clinton repeatedly said last year she never sent or received classified information, but now says she did not do so knowingly since the release of the FBI findings.

The employee also said the Defense Department told the State Department last year it had found about 1,000 emails between Clinton and David Petraeus in its records from his time as the director of the United States Central Command.

The State Department has said that Clinton did not include any of her emails with Petraeus when her lawyers screened and returned what they said were all her work emails in 2014. A single conversation of about 10 emails later emerged last year after the Defense Department provided it.

Spokesmen for Clinton have declined to discuss the omission, and did not respond to questions about the new interview summaries.

Kirby, the department spokesman, said he could not “speculate” whether the Defense Department had found more than just a single conversation between Clinton and Petraeus. “We can only speak to the records in our possession,” he said. Full article here.

Now for more disgusting details:

27 things we learned from Clinton’s FBI files

According to the witness, State Department officials at one point attempted to classify information in order to have an excuse to redact it even though the agency’s own Office of Legal Counsel thought the email was not worthy of classification.

The witness said he and other career officers, who were typically involved in the FOIA process and in responding to congressional inquiries, were “cut out of the loop” when Clinton’s emails needed processing. Instead, new staffers were “placed” by “top State officials” to take over the job of screening Clinton’s emails; the witness said the officials — whose identities were redacted — had “a very narrow focus on all Clinton-related items and were put in positions that were not advertised.”

FOIA reviews are supposed to be performed by career officials to prevent politics from affecting the government’s response, particularly in a case as politically fraught as the Clinton email situation.

Clinton deleted nearly 1,000 emails with Petraeus

In Aug. 2015, the Pentagon called the State Department and informed an unnamed official there that “CENTCOM records showed approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton’s personal email and General David Petraeus.”

The FBI noted that “[m]ost of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails” that Clinton turned over to the State Department in Dec. 2014.

Officials felt ‘pressure’ not to classify any Benghazi emails

 

At least one witness told the FBI he felt “pressure” not to upgrade any information in a highly-anticipated batch of 296 emails related to Benghazi.

The witness said Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s undersecretary for management, went to the FBI and “pointedly asked” the bureau “to change [its] classification determination” for a Benghazi email that had been marked classified.

The Benghazi-related emails were among the first records from Clinton’s private server to be made public.

Kennedy “categorically rejected” the notion that he would obstruct the FOIA process when he sat down with FBI agents in Dec. 2015.

Sidney Blumenthal advised more high-level officials

Clinton has often defended her relationship to longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal by referring to his detailed missives — some of which are now at least partially classified — as unsolicited memos from an old friend.

But Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff, told the FBI he also spoke directly with Blumenthal during his tenure.

Sullivan said he spoke by phone with Blumenthal and emailed with him occasionally, even acting as a go-between for Blumenthal and Clinton or other high-level officials.

Blumenthal’s controversial style prompted the Obama White House to ban him from working in the administration. However, Clinton’s private emails exposed the informal position he held within Clinton’s State Department.

 

Sullivan described Blumenthal as someone who “likes to help the cause.”

State Department officials definitely knew about the server

Many high-level agency staffers, including Kennedy, have claimed they knew nothing of Clinton’s private email server until they saw stories about it in the news.

A common defense for officials who could be implicated if they admitted prior knowledge of the network has been to acknowledge Clinton’s occasional use of a personal address to send messages but to deny awareness of the hardware that sat in her basement.

One unnamed witness who worked in the State Department’s IT office told the FBI he was aware of the server system since the day Clinton was sworn in.

That was because the witness was forced to work with Bryan Pagliano, the technology specialist who had built the server for Clinton, in order for the server to accommodate Clinton’s government work.

For example, the witness “interacted with [Pagliano] to keep [the server] communicating with State systems” during the “5-6 instances” in which Clinton’s private emails were intercepted by the government’s security systems before they could reach the .gov inboxes of her colleagues.

Although the witness helped Pagliano keep the server running remotely, the individual told the FBI “he did not know how the server was paid for or where it was physically located.”

At least three people had emails on the ‘clintonemail.com’ network

Besides Clinton, the only other individual known to have used an email address on the “clintonemail.com” domain was Huma Abedin, then her deputy chief of staff.

Justin Cooper, a former aide to Clinton’s husband and to the Clinton Foundation, told the FBI that at least one other person used an account on that network “as part of their association or work for Hillary Clinton.”

That person’s name, or multiple other names, were redacted by the FBI. Clinton has sworn under penalty of perjury that Cheryl Mills, her former chief of staff, did not use an account on the server.

Pagliano tried to sound the alarm

In a Dec. 2015 interview with the FBI, Clinton’s former IT aide said he had repeatedly attempted to warn her team about the potential record-keeping implications of her unauthorized network.

Pagliano said he had been called into a high-level State Department official’s office in summer 2009 and asked if he knew about the existence of a “clintonemail.com” domain in use by the former secretary of state.

When Pagliano relayed the incident to individuals whose names were redacted, an unidentified witness had a “visceral” reaction and “didn’t want to know anymore.”

One unidentified witness told Pagliano in 2009 that Clinton’s private email use “may be a federal records retention issue” and stated “that he wanted to convey this to Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, but could not reach them.”

Pagliano said he “then approached Cheryl Mills in her office and relayed [redacted]’s concerns regarding federal records retention and the use of a private email server.”

However, Mills dismissed the concerns by arguing other former secretaries of state had done the same thing — an assertion later proven false.

Witnesses were nervous about talking to the FBI

One former State Department aide told investigators she was worried Clinton would be angry if she learned the unnamed individual had spoken to the FBI.

At the end of her Dec. 2015 interview, the witness told agents “she had not mentioned the interview to Clinton or any of [her] contacts from [State Department].” That witness explained her concerns that Clinton and her staff “could be upset to learn she spoke with the FBI without telling them.”

President Obama used a fake name

During an interview with Abedin, FBI agents presented the longtime Clinton aide with a copy of an email from Obama to Clinton.

The president had used a pseudonym to communicate with Clinton on her private server.

“How is this not classified?” Abedin “exclaimed,” according to the FBI’s summary of its conversation with her.

Abedin explained that Clinton had notified the White House when she changed her primary email address because Obama’s network was set up to block unfamiliar accounts from sending him messages.

The new revelation has raised questions about the president’s claims to have had no knowledge of Clinton’s private email use before March 2014, since her private address had to be added manually to a list of accounts with permission to communicate with his own server.

FBI agents conducted interviews in Denver, San Francisco

FBI agents traveled to Denver in September of last year to question employees of Platte River Networks, the Colorado company Clinton hired in 2013 to manage her email network.

At least one employee of Platte River, Paul Combetta, was granted an immunity agreement in exchange for information.

Combetta was asked to delete emails in defiance of a preservation order for those documents that had been issued by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Agents also traveled to San Francisco to question Lewis Lukens, a former State Department official during Clinton’s tenure.

Clinton’s team tried to mop up emails after NYT story

In March 2015, an unspecified individual from Clinton’s staff reached out to Platte River to determine how many emails existed and where those records were stored. The New York Times exposed Clinton’s private email use in a story on March 1 of that year.

Clinton’s team sprang into action in the immediate aftermath of that story, scrambling to account for the location of any email she might have sent during her State Department tenure in the days between the initial Times story and her first public statements on the controversy at a press conference on March 10, 2015.

Another unnamed employee at the firm said he received an email from Clinton’s staff on March 9 of that year but told FBI agents he “did not recall seeing” the preservation order attached to that email by David Kendall, Clinton’s primary attorney.

Yet another unnamed staffer from Platte River told investigators he genuinely believed the archive of Clinton’s emails “should still be on the server in possession of the FBI.”

He said only two people in the world had the authorization to delete an entire mailbox. The names of those two individuals were redacted.

A dated list of files on the server indicated the archive of Clinton’s emails was still on the server by the time the list was generated in Jan. 2015 — a month after the original batch of 30,000 emails was provided to the State Department.

But at some point over the next few months, someone scrubbed the archive from the server.

Staffers shattered discs that stored emails

After Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, asked a Platte River staffer in July 2014 to hand over all of Clinton’s correspondence with any address that ended in “.gov,” the employee burned the emails onto DVDs and prepared to ship them to Mills.

However, Mills said she didn’t want the discs to be transferred via mail and instead asked the tech specialist to arrange a “secure electronic transfer” of the emails. The Platte River staffer said he “destroyed the DVDs by breaking them in half” once the digital transfer was complete.

The July 2014 request came just two months after the House Select Committee on Benghazi was created

Witnesses pleaded the 5th during FBI interviews

One employee of Platte River was advised by the company’s lawyer to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer any further questions when FBI investigators started asking about what the technology specialist had discussed with Kendall.

The agents referred to documentation that the employee had spoken to Mills and Kendall on a March 31, 2015 conference call.

That employee used a digital deletion tool called Bleachbit to scrub emails from the server on the very same day.

The State Department timeline doesn’t fit

Multiple witnesses told the FBI that Mills asked them to round up all of Clinton’s work-related emails in July of 2014. The timing of the request described to investigators fits with the progression of the Benghazi committee’s probe.

But the State Department has said it did not ask Clinton for her emails until Oct. 2014, and claims it only did so because officials realized they had no emails from previous secretaries of state.

Clinton has long touted the fact that the State Department sent letters to other secretaries of state requesting copies of personal emails.

The new timeline confirmed by the FBI suggests it took Clinton’s staff five months to prepare her work-related emails for submission to the State Department. The 30,000 emails she ultimately provided were not given to the agency until early Dec. 2014.

Clinton relied on staff outside State

Justin Cooper, an aide to Clinton’s husband and a former Clinton Foundation adviser, supported Clinton’s staff during her time at the State Department.

Monica Hanley, Clinton’s assistant, told the FBI she would contact Cooper each time she needed to synch Clinton’s BlackBerry with the server that was partially under Cooper’s care.

What’s more, Hanley said she would contact Cooper — not anyone at the State Department — “when [she] needed reimbursement for items she purchased for Clinton.”

Like Pagliano, Cooper performed services for Clinton that were related to her State Department work but that were paid for out of the Clinton’s own pocket.

There’s a lost thumb drive with all the emails on it

Hanley was tasked with transferring all of Clinton’s emails onto a laptop Cooper provided from the Clinton Foundation. That laptop eventually got lost in the mail, a detail that was revealed in the 58 pages of notes the FBI released on Sept. 2.

But Hanley also transferred all of Clinton’s emails onto a thumb drive at the same time. She told the FBI she “could not recall what happened to the thumb-drive.”

The transfer came in spring 2013, shortly after longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal’s inbox was breached by a Romanian hacker. Platte River advised the former secretary of state to change email addresses, touching off the shuffle of records onto devices that were ultimately lost.

Clinton’s attorney was cleaning up

In addition to the conference call with a Platte River employee that prompted that employee to suddenly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, Kendall contacted Hanley in “March or April 2015,” shortly after the New York Times story was published.

Hanley did not describe what she and Kendall discussed, but she immediately cleaned out State Department records from her inbox after she spoke with him.

“Following her conversation with Kendall, Hanley searched the Gmail account she used while at [State Department] for any email communications with state.gov accounts and deleted emails associated with state.gov accounts,” the FBI wrote in its report.

An aide left classified documents in a Russian hotel room

Hanley was given “verbal security counseling” after she accidentally left a classified document and a sensitive “briefing book” in a Russian hotel suite she was using with Clinton.

Diplomatic security officers “found a classified document from the briefing book in the suite during a sweep following Clinton and Hanley’s departure” and later told Hanley “the briefing book and the document should never have been in the suite.”

Kennedy may have misled the inspector general

Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management with a history of blocking inspector general probes, assured State Department Inspector General Steve Linick that Clinton had turned over electronic copies of her emails in a July 2015 meeting with the watchdog.

Then, when Linick requested the electronic file for those emails, Kennedy said he only had hard copies.

Linick also referred the FBI to additional witnesses who alleged current employees at the State Department have been “meddling with the FOIA review process.” Other witnesses pointed to Kennedy as a potential interference in the document screening that took place before Benghazi-related records were provided to Congress.

During his internal probe of agency email practices, Linick said Pagliano refused to be interviewed by the inspector general’s team about his involvement with the Clinton network.

Clinton ‘could not use a computer’

Abedin told the FBI Clinton conducted most of her work in person or on paper due to her limitations with technology.

“Abedin explained that Clinton could not use a computer and that she primarily used her iPad or BlackBerry for checking emails,” the FBI wrote of its April interview with Abedin.

Another witness told the FBI Clinton had “little patience” for technology problems.

State officials weren’t buying Clinton’s email excuses

Clinton continues to stress the fact that most of the classified emails found on her server were only retroactively designated as such — that is, they were not classified at the time they were written, but merely upgraded to classified at a later date due to a change in circumstances regarding the information.

An unnamed witness told the FBI he had “heard the argument” but didn’t quite buy it.

“It was very rare for something that was actually unclassified to become classified years after the fact,” the witness told investigators.

Including the retroactively classified documents, there were more than 2,000 classified records on Clinton’s server.

Clinton left the doors of her SCIF open when she wasn’t home

The State Department had installed SCIFs, or areas designed for the secure consumption of classified material, in both her her New York and Washington, D.C. homes.

Clinton did not always keep those areas secure, however. Cooper told the FBI she was careless when it came to keeping the SCIFs locked.

“The SCIF doors at both residences were not always secured, including times when Clinton was not at the residences,” Cooper told the FBI, according to its summary of their second of three interviews with the former Clinton family aide.

State officials worried about Clinton and classified material from the start

Eric Boswell, assistant secretary for diplomatic security for most of Clinton’s tenure, said his team had concerns about how the incoming secretary of state and her staff would treat classified areas from the beginning of their tenures.

Specifically, diplomatic security personnel worried that Clinton and her team would use their BlackBerrys inside the SCIF that encompasses much of the seventh floor at State Department headquarters, an area known as “Mahogany Row.”

Clinton’s staff had asked for a classified-enabled BlackBerry upon joining the agency, but Boswell said no such device exists.

“There was some general concern within [State Department] security personnel that Clinton’s executive staff may try to use their Blackberries [sic] in the SCIF as they were almost all brought on to [State Department] from Clinton’s campaign team, and thus were very accustom to using their Blackberries [sic],” the FBI wrote in a summary of its Feb. 2016 interview with Boswell.

Clinton frequently used a flip phone

Clinton cycled through eight BlackBerry while she was secretary of state for a total of 13 devices throughout the life of her email server, the FBI revealed earlier this month.

But she also used a flip phone to make calls, Cooper said, because she found the device “more comfortable to talk on.”

The flip phone allowed her to check emails on her Blackberry while talking on the phone, Cooper told the FBI. He could not identify what model she used and it is unclear whether the FBI ever recovered any of the flip phones in Clinton’s possession.

Tech aides described ‘Hillary cover-up operation’

Platte River employees sent emails describing the ‘Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation’ after Clinton’s staff asked them to begin wiping emails in Dec. 2014.

The unnamed employee who authored the phrase told FBI agents that his reference to the “cover-up” was a joke.

Clinton created second personal account when server crashed

The former secretary of state set up a previously undisclosed email account to communicate when her private server system was down.

Hanley told FBI investigators that Clinton likely created the second private account — a “gmail.com” address — to send messages when her server crashed in 2011 during a trip to Croatia.

Clinton’s top aides were hacked

Stephen Mull, a top record-keeping official at the State Department, told the FBI that “sometime in 2011,” he learned from diplomatic security officers about “concern over the possibility that some personal email accounts of [State Department] employees were hacked.”

Mull said Sullivan, who was one of the aides most frequently in contact with Clinton on her email, was among those hacked in the breaches.