Category Archives: Legislation

IRS Audit Proves Taxpayer Data Exposed

Posted on by

 

The report is here and the numbers mentioned were a random sampling.

IRS exposed taxpayers’ info through shoddy emails, audit shows

Staff sent tax return data through unencrypted messages

WashingtonTimes: A surprising number of IRS employees are sending unencrypted emails containing personal taxpayer information to private accounts, putting that information at risk of being stolen, the agency’s inspector general said Thursday.

Auditors found hundreds of unencrypted emails sent that risked leaking taxpayers’ personal information, after running through a random sample of 80 employees’ emails from the IRS’s small business/self employed division for four weeks in 2015. Extrapolated over a year, that could mean more than 1.1 million emails, covering more than 28 million taxpayers’ information, could have been sent by the division.

“These unencrypted e-mails violated IRM requirements and potentially compromised the security of taxpayer information,” Inspector General J. Russell George said.

Most of the unencrypted messages were sent to other IRS employees, posing a lower risk because they were inside the agency’s firewall. But some 15 percent of the messages were sent outside the IRS — including some that IRS agents sent to their own personal email accounts, for reasons that were unclear.

The IRS, in its official response, said the review didn’t prove that information had gotten into the wrong hands, and said most of the messages identified were at least kept within the agency’s firewall.

“These communications are within the extensive protections of the IRS firewall, and pose a minimal risk of disclosure or access,” Karen Schiller, commissioner of the small business division, wrote. “But, nonetheless, we agree that encryption provides an added layer of protection.”

She said the agency has already upgraded some of its checks since the inspector general’s 2015 review.

IRS officials have repeatedly warned employees to be careful with what’s dubbed “personally identifiable information,” or PII in government-speak. Email is a particular risk, the agency says.

Personal information can be sent within the IRS to other employees who have a need to know, but even then it’s supposed to be encrypted. And sending personal information outside the IRS is forbidden, even if a taxpayer gives OK, unless an exception is specifically approved.

During the four-week test, involving 80 employees, the auditors found 32 of them — 40 percent — broke the rules by sending a total of 326 unencrypted messages containing “tax return information” from more than 8,000 taxpayers.

Of those, 51 were sent outside the IRS. More than half were sent directly to taxpayers, 14 were sent to taxpayers’ representatives, three were sent to other government agencies or third parties, and in six cases employees sent taxpayers’ information to their own personal email addresses. In some cases they sent their own information to themselves — which is still prohibited.

IRS rules allow for employees to be admonished or fired for breaking email privacy — though neither the audit nor the agency’s official response said whether anyone has been disciplined.

In a separate audit released Thursday the inspector general said the IRS didn’t always take steps to protect data transferred in bulk to other federal agencies, state and local governments, banks or contractors.

“It is essential that the IRS fully protect sensitive personal and taxpayer information that it transmits externally,” Mr. George, the inspector general, said.

Will Obama Burrow-in on the Trump Admin? Likely

Posted on by

A smooth and successful transfer of power on the surface perhaps…but beware of those in the shadows and lurking forever in dark hallways inside the beltway.

Primer: Obama tells anti-Trump protestors to march-on.

President Obama, speaking at a press conference in Germany, passed up the opportunity Thursday to tamp down the anti-Donald Trump protests back home — urging those taking part not to remain “silent.” 

The president fielded a question on the protests during a joint news conference in Berlin alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 

“I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests,” he answered. “So, I would not advise people who feel strongly or who are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised during the course of the campaign, I wouldn’t advise them to be silent.” 

He added: “Voting matters, organizing matters and being informed on the issues matter.” 

Have you heard of the Senior Executive Service?

The Senior Executive Service (SES) lead America’s workforce. As the keystone of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the SES was established to “…ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.” These leaders possess well-honed executive skills and share a broad perspective on government and a public service commitment that is grounded in the Constitution.

Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. SES members are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) manages the overall Federal executive personnel program, providing the day-to-day oversight and assistance to agencies as they develop, select, and manage their Federal executives.

Obama by using his mighty pen and phone can covert some of his most trusted operatives to be permanent government employees, undermining the missions of the next administration. Let that sink in a moment.

****

Personnel—Political-to-Career Conversions (“Burrowing In”)

Some individuals, who are serving in appointed (noncareer) positions in the executive branch, convert to career positions in the competitive service, the Senior Executive Service (SES), or the excepted service. This practice, commonly referred to as “burrowing in,” is permissible when laws and regulations governing career appointments are followed. While such conversions may occur at any time, frequently they do so during the transition period when one Administration is preparing to leave office and another Administration is preparing to assume office.

Generally, these appointees were selected noncompetitively and are serving in such positions as Schedule C,  noncareer SES, or limited tenure SES24 that involve policy determinations or require a close and confidential relationship with the department or agency head and other top officials. Many of the Schedule C appointees receive salaries at the GS-12 through GS-15 pay levels. The noncareer and limited tenure members of the SES receive salaries under the pay schedule for senior executives that also covers the career SES.  Career employees, on the other hand, are to be selected on the basis of merit and without political influence following a process that is to be fair and open in evaluating their knowledge, skills, and experience against that of other applicants. The tenure of noncareer and career employees also differs. The former are generally limited to the term of the Administration in which they are appointed or serve at the pleasure of the person who appointed them. The latter constitute a work force that continues the operations of government without regard to the change of Administrations. In 2007, Paul Light, a professor of government at New York University who studied appointees over several Administrations, indicated that the pay, benefits, and job security of career positions underlie the desire of individuals in noncareer positions to “burrow in.”

Beyond the fundamental concern that the conversion of an individual from an appointed (noncareer) position to a career position may not have followed applicable legal and regulatory requirements, “burrowing in” raises other concerns. When the practice occurs, the following perceptions (whether valid or not) may result: that an appointee converting to a career position may limit the opportunity for other employees (who were competitively selected for their career positions, following examination of their knowledge, skills, and experience) to be promoted into another career position with greater responsibility and pay; or that the individual who is converted to a career position may seek to undermine the work of the new Administration whose policies may be at odds with those that he or she espoused when serving in the appointed capacity. Both perceptions may increase the tension between noncareer and career staff, thereby hindering the effective operation of government at a time when the desirability of creating “common ground” between these staff to facilitate government performance continues to be emphasized.28

Appointments to Career Positions

Appointments to career positions in the executive branch are governed by laws and regulations that are codified in Title 5 of the United States Code and Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, respectively. For purposes of both, appointments to career positions are among those activities defined as “personnel actions,” a class of activities that can be undertaken only in accordance with strict procedures. In taking a personnel action, each department and agency head is responsible for preventing prohibited personnel practices; for complying with, and enforcing, applicable civil service laws, rules, and regulations and other aspects of personnel management; and for ensuring that agency employees are informed of the rights and remedies available to them. Such actions must adhere to the nine merit principles and thirteen prohibited personnel practices that are codified at 5 U.S.C. §2301(b) and §2302(b), respectively. These principles and practices are designed to ensure that the process for selecting career employees is fair and open (competitive), and free from political influence.

Department and agency heads also must follow regulations, codified at Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that govern career appointments. These include Civil Service Rules 4.2, which prohibits racial, political, or religious discrimination, and 7.1, which addresses an appointing officer’s discretion in filling vacancies. Other regulations provide that Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approval is required before employees in Schedule C positions may be detailed to competitive service positions, public announcement is required for all SES vacancies that will be filled by initial career appointment, and details to SES positions that are reserved for career employees (known as Career-Reserved) may only be filled by career SES or career-type non-SES appointees.

During the period June 1, 2016, through January 20, 2017, which is defined as the Presidential Election Period, certain appointees are prohibited from receiving financial awards. These

appointees, referred to as senior politically appointed officers, are (1) individuals serving in noncareer SES positions; (2) individuals serving in confidential or policy determining positions as Schedule C employees; and (3) individuals serving in limited term and limited emergency positions.

When a department or agency, for example, converts an employee from an appointed (noncareer) position to a career position without any apparent change in duties and responsibilities, or the new position appears to have been tailored to the individual’s knowledge and experience, such actions may invite scrutiny. OPM, on an ongoing basis, and GAO, periodically, conduct oversight related to conversions of employees from noncareer to career positions to ensure that proper procedures have been followed. More here from FAS.

 

There Already is a Registry Database, NSEERS Kinda

Posted on by

It is called NSEERS.

There is an entry and exit program managed by the Department of Homeland Security….well they maintain it but don’t use it to remove people…but it does exist to the point of a backlog of 1.6 million and it actually a Visa Overstay system.

Thank you GW Bush, as NSEERS was launched in 2002 and used to collect names, backgrounds and locations of people that were inside the United States that would pose a threat and cause additional harm to the homeland. The Bush administration earnestly applied all elements of this program and performed thousands of deportations as well as criminal investigations on violators or those connected to nefarious groups and organization. By the end of the calendar year 2002, 3,995 wanted criminals had been arrested attempting to cross into the United States. 

The 9/11 Commission Report dedicated an entire chapter to immigration and the flaws. Many of the hijackers were in the United States illegally. Okay, then the 9/11 Commission also made stout recommendations of which everyone in Congress agreed to and signed. Then a few years later, those agreements began to fall apart on the Democrat side and continue to be forgotten today.

So, Obama Should Pardon ‘Dreamer’ Immigrants, Democrats Say

Bloomberg: A group of House Democrats called on President Barack Obama to pardon about 750,000 young undocumented immigrants who are temporarily shielded from deportation under a 2012 executive order, a move that reflects growing concern about a shift in immigration policy expected after President-elect Donald Trump takes power in January. More here.

*****

Back to that database.

Then the Obama administration decided there were legal challenges to its application and use.

GAO had previously reported that, as of January 2011, DHS had a backlog of 1.6 million unmatched arrival records that had not been reviewed through automated or manual processes. DHS tracks arrivals and departures and closes records for individuals with matching arrival and departure records. Unmatched arrival records indicate that the individual is a potential overstay. In 2011, DHS reviewed this backlog of 1.6 million records, closed about 863,000 records, and removed them from the backlog. As new unmatched arrival records have accrued, DHS has continued to review all of these new records for national security and public safety concerns. As of June 2013, DHS’s unmatched arrival records totaled more than 1 million. More here from the 2013 report.

The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties was asked to take a hard look at the NSEERS program and they made some deletions with the approval of Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2011.

DHS Removes Designated Countries from NSEERS Registration (May 2011)

As part of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties‘ (CRCL) outreach efforts, we have translated the following announcement into Arabic, Bengali, Farsi, French, Pashto and Urdu.

DHS announced the removal of the list of countries whose nationals have been subject to registration under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)—effectively ending the NSEERS registration process through the publication of a notice in the Federal Register.

DHS and the U.S. government have conducted roundtables, meetings, and town halls with our community partners around the nation, regarding the NSEERS process. NSEERS was first implemented in 2002 as a temporary measure in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and was designed to record the arrival, stay, and departure of certain individuals from countries chosen based on an analysis of possible national security threats. The NSEERS registration required approximately 30 minutes in secondary inspection, per person, per arrival; and NSEERS registrants were also required to register upon departure at one of the 118 designated ports of departure, limiting travel flexibility.

So for the year 2015, DHS issued an Entry/Exit Overstay Report and the real change in word definitions began to change.

An overstay is a nonimmigrant who was lawfully admitted to the United States for an authorized period but stayed or remains in the United States beyond his or her lawful admission period. DHS identifies two types of overstays—those individuals for whom no departure has been recorded (Suspected In-Country Overstay) and those individuals whose departure was recorded after their lawful admission period expired (Out-of-Country Overstay). The overstay identification process is conducted through arrival, departure and immigration status information, consolidated to generate a complete picture of individuals traveling to the United States.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) collects biographic information on all nonimmigrant arrivals to the United States through an inspection by a CBP officer. In the air and sea environment, CBP officers validate the manifest information provided by commercial and private aircraft operators. For many nonimmigrants, submission of biometric information is also required upon admission and is captured in the presence of a CBP officer.1 In addition, CBP has strengthened the document requirements at air, land, and sea Ports of Entry (POEs) by reducing the number of accepted travel documents one may use to enter the United States, 2 which in turn has increased CBP’s ability to quickly and accurately collect information on arriving aliens, particularly at the land borders.

The United States did not build its border, aviation, and immigration infrastructure with exit processing in mind. Consequently, United States airports do not have designated areas exclusively for travelers leaving the United States. Instead, departures of travelers are recorded biographically using outbound passenger manifests provided by commercial carriers. Under regulations governing the Advance Passenger Information System, carriers are required to validate the manifest information against the travel document being presented before a traveler is permitted to board their aircraft or sea vessel.

In the land environment, travelers arrive at land POEs via various modes of transportation, including cars, trains, buses, ferries, bicycles, trucks, and on foot. There are major physical infrastructure, logistical, and operational hurdles to collect an individual’s biographic and biometric data upon departure. Due to the existing limitations in collecting departure data in the land environment, this report does not include departure and overstay information from those travelers who entered the United States through a land POE. CBP is addressing these limitations through various efforts, including increased information sharing and partnerships, targeted operations, analyzing land POE departure traffic, and several pilots to experiment with innovative means of collecting biometric information from individuals departing via land POEs.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) anticipates the ability to provide a broader scope of data in future Entry/Exit Overstay Reports. Efforts by CBP, as described in this report, are ongoing and will continue to improve the existing process and availability of departure data.

In January 2012, CTCEU initiated the use of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in support of its Overstay Program to screen overstays by identifying potential matches to derogatory intelligence community holdings.

FY 2015 only, the Department determined that there were a total of 44,928,381 nonimmigrant admissions to the United States for business or pleasure through air or sea POEs that were expected to depart in FY 2015. Of this number, the Department calculated a total overstay rate of 1.17 percent, or 527,127 individuals. In other words, 98.83 percent had left the United States on time and abided by the terms of their admission.

At the end of FY 2015, Suspected In-Country Overstays were 482,781 individuals, with a Suspected In-Country Overstay rate of 1.07 percent. This data indicates that 98.93 percent had departed the United States or transitioned to a lawful immigration status.

If you can stand reading the report and how the numbers are filtered and sifted, go here.

 

Trump Plans/Prepares for a 2 Ocean War

Posted on by

Maybe new keels are soon to be laid and a draft could be in the future of the military.

As for the Army, the numbers are noted below but do not include the other branches of service.

ArmyTimes: Endstrength for March was 479,172 soldiers, which is 154 fewer troopers than were on active duty when the Army halted the post-Cold War drawdown in 1999 with 479,424 soldiers, the smallest force since 1940, when the active component numbered 269,023 soldiers.

Barring unexpected delays, the Army is well-positioned to achieve, or exceed, its budgeted end-strength of 475,000 soldiers by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2016.

Without congressional or Defense Department intervention, the drawdown will continue for two more years, with end strength hitting 460,000 soldiers in 2017, and 450,000 in 2018.

The United States Navy is a powerhouse. The fleet consists of roughly 430 ships in active service or reserve. The vessels run the gamut from the massive Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, which stretches more than 1,000 feet, to the Los Angeles-class submarine that slithers 900 feet below the ocean surface. The graphic below shows all the commissioned and noncommissioned ships of every size as of April 2015. The ships are organized by size, from the humongous aircraft carriers at the top to the smaller ships at the bottom.

2015-u-s-navy-fleet

 

Donald Trump wants to increase America’s military force in the Asia-Pacific

DONALD Trump’s administration has given its strongest indication yet that the United States will increase America’s military force against China.

Rudy Giuliani, the president-elect’s frontrunner for secretary of state, has revealed Mr Trump intends to prioritise building a “gigantic” military force to overthrow China’s ambitions in the Pacific.

Speaking to global business leaders in Washington yesterday, Mr Giuliani said the United States would raise its number of troops to 550,000, instead of shrinking it to 420,000.

He also said they intended to take their navy up to 350 ships, instead of going down to 247. It currently has around 280.

“At 350, China can’t match us in the Pacific. At 247 ships, we can’t fight a two-ocean war; we gave up the Pacific. If you face them with a military that is modern, gigantic, overwhelming and unbelievably good at conventional and asymmetric warfare, they may challenge it, but I doubt it.”

He said the expansion would allow the US to fight a “two-ocean war”.

This presents a more assertive foreign policy than the world ever heard from Mr Trump in the lead-up to election with regards to China.

While the South China Sea remains one of the world’s most tense geopolitical regions, the celebrity billionaire was careful to keep his remarks on it to a minimum in the lead-up to the US election.

Experts have told news.com.au Mr Trump has always been set on building the US’s military presence.

“It’s likely that America will have a lot more military muscle under his presidency,” said Macquarie University Security Studies analyst Adam Lockyer. “While we can’t get ahead of ourselves, much of that will likely go into the Asia-Pacific region, because China’s a major challenger.

“On one hand they’re paying less diplomatic and critical attention to the region, but on the other they’re building more military presence in the region.”

That said, Mr Giuliani’s remarks suggest Mr Trump’s administration will be more hawkish than expected.

It was expected that Mr Trump would retreat from the disputed region, in line with his pledge to prioritise domestic issues and retreat from foreign affairs.

“Trump has a far more isolationist outlook than Clinton or Obama, but at the same time, if he had his own way, he’d be far more focused on domestic policy and domestic security, including things like terrorism and immigration,” Dr Lockyer said.

Judging by this announcement, the Trump administration may take a more hawkish approach after all.

WILL THIS ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

The Trump administration will face significant financial hurdles if it does take on this ambitious military program.

Asia-Pacific security expert Jingdong Yuan from the Centre For International Security Studies told news.com.au said it was achievable. He said Mr Trump will be able to work with the Republican-controlled Congress to do away with the sequester process that automatically cut $500 billion in defence over a decade.

But it could be relatively difficult for the incoming government to direct too much of its financial focus to defence.

“US defence spending as a percentage of GDP and government spending is at a historical low, especially after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Dr Yuan.

“At the same time, entitlement spending, such as social security and medicare cannot be cut, and increase year by year, and federal government deficits of over $18-19 trillion make it difficult to spend more in discretionary areas such as defence.

“So Trump need to find the money to support his ambitious military programs. We will see.”

He also said that neither the United States nor China are being realistic when it comes down to it.

“Beijing and Washington will have to work on their differences while at the same time work together on things they both agree.

“This is a very complex relationship and neither America’s will to remain predominant nor China’s desire for a Sino-centric order in Asia are realistic.

“Indeed, if they both pursue these extreme goals, conflict will become more likely and it will be deeply destabilising for the region — Australia included.”

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR AUSTRALIA?

Defence Industries Minister Christopher Pyne says the planned expansion would create “remarkable opportunities” for Australia’s defence industry.

In a speech to be given at a Submarine Institute of Australia conference today, Mr Pyne will announce that the US expansion could offer a historic opportunity for Australia’s defence industry.

“To give you an understanding of the scale of this increase, it ­includes 50,000 more army troops, 70 new naval warships, 100 air force planes and a dozen new marine battalions,” Mr Pyne will say. “This represents around half a trillion US dollar increase to the US defence budget over the next decade.

“This result could bring with it remarkable opportunities for the Australian defence industry and, thanks to the foresight of the Turnbull government, Australia is well positioned to grasp those opportunities.”

Yesterday, Mr Pyne told The Australian the country will take a “similar focus” to the United States in terms of its defence policy.

“At a time when the US is expanding capability, we are similarly focused. As we have demonstrated throughout the year, the government is putting defence at the very centre of our national policy agenda.”

Mr Giuliani acknowledged the Trump administration hopes to engage with China on economic issues, such as trade.

Yesterday, he told The Wall Street Journal the team wants to reset relations with both China and Russia.

But Mr Trump intends to label China a “currency manipulator” after taking office, which economic analysts say will likely contribute to rising tensions between the two countries.

Chinese media has taken a hostile response to Mr Trump’s more outlandish comments on the country during his campaign.

In May this year, the then-presidential candidate accused China of “raping” the United States economically, and vowed to impose a 45 per cent tariff on Chinese imports.

An article published in the country’s nationalistic newspaper The Global Times this week warned the Chinese government will be forced to “take a tit-for-tat approach” if the president-elect persisted with the trade war.

“If Trump wrecks Sino-US trade, a number of US industries will be impaired. Finally the new president will be condemned for his recklessness, ignorance and incompetence and bear all the consequences.”

This trade war may also present problems for Australia. China and the United States are our first and third largest trading partners respectively, and such an action could trigger a trade war if Beijing were to retaliate, which would directly impact these relationships.

All this said, Dr Yuan says it’s still too soon to panic over what the Trump administration may or may not do.

“The election fog is still here and we need time and information to get more realistic and accurate assessments,” he said.

“I remain cautiously optimistic.”

****

At issue with China is the waterway dispute instigated by China.

 CNN

NSA: All Signs Point to Russian Hacking

Posted on by

Are all the right questions being asked regarding presidential candidates relationships with the Kremlin? What is the real relationship that Trump and his organization has with Russia? Further, what about what the Hillary camp did prior to the elections? Video and transcript from MEMRI on the Hillary Camp.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson: People from Clinton’s Elections Team Visited Moscow Many Times
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said that meetings with various personnel on the elections teams of both U.S. presidential candidates was “normal diplomatic practice,” and implied that the American outrage regarding Russian contacts with President-elect Trump’s team in the buildup to the elections was groundless. Asked about contacts with Hillary Clinton’s team, Zakharova said: “They came to Moscow many times.” She was speaking on a Russia 1 post-elections talk show on November 13.

The NSA also announced it was inside Russia infrastructure.

 CyberWire: Many countries afford criminals a safe harbor, and the criminals are emboldened by this. Attackers continue to exploit human trust, Mandia said, and there activities will continue to reflect geopolitical conditions. He noted that the Syrian Electronic Army became active after the US declared a redline over the Assad regime’s anticipated use of chemical weapons. He doesn’t regard this as an accident. Looking at the two biggest competitors of the US in cyberspace, Mandia saw more capability in China, but more hacking from Russia. He thought that Chinese hacking has actually declined. But “Russia’s dialed it up a notch.” Beginning in 2014 Mandia saw a dip in Russian OPSEC as hacking tools were increasingly shared by government and criminals. He also saw less attention being paid to manual deletion of hackers’ tracks from victim systems. He concludes from this that “the Russians know what they’re looking for, and they’re operating at a scale where they don’t have manual resources available.” The large scale and high operational tempo of Russian hacking has led them to build capability at the cost of stealth and evasiveness. Turning to the cybercriminal underworld, he notes the rise in extortion. He sees this as in part a response to enhanced credit card security. As card security got better, criminals realized they had more lucrative options. It’s also not particularly risky, he said—it’s proving difficult to penetrate the anonymity of those who hold data for ransom. The attackers’ methods are indiscriminate: most attacks are what Mandia called “spray and pray” operations, not targeted work. A great deal of ransomware is being spread with automated spearphishing.

What about the matter of Russian war crimes in Syria, Crimea and Ukraine? Of note, Russia just terminated the membership of the International Criminal Court.

BusinessInsider: The leader of the National Security Agency says there shouldn’t be “any doubt in anybody’s mind” that there was “a conscious effort by a nation-state” to sway the result of the 2016 presidential election.

Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal in response to a question about WikiLeaks’ release of nearly 20,000 internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s minds,” Rogers said. “This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials say they suspect Russia provided the emails to WikiLeaks after hackers stole them from DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta.

At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year reading emails, chats, and downloading private documents. Many of those files were later released by WikiLeaks.

The hack of Podesta’s private Gmail address was traced by cybersecurity researchers to hackers with Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the GRU, because the group made an error during its campaign of “spear phishing” targets — tricking them into clicking on malicious links or give up their passwords. The researchers found that the group had targeted more than 100 email addresses that were associated with the Clinton campaign, according to The New York Times.

The Obama administration in October publicly accused Russia of being behind the hacks.

“The US intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails,” reads a statement from the Department of Homeland Security. “These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on Tuesday that he wants the Senate to open an investigation into whether the Russian government meddled in the US election. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly denied his country was behind the hacks.