Category Archives: Libya Benghazi Muslim Brotherhood murder

Why No Search Warrant for Hillary’s Mobile Devices?

Posted on by

The revelation that Hillary had her own email server was a shocker. Then the forced and scheduled production of those emails was another shocker as they were produced. The Trey Gowdy House Benghazi Committee being stonewalled by the Clinton camp and by the State Department was another shocker as compared with Hillary’s own false pledges of cooperation. Several outside organizations have been forced to file FOIA requests and then were forced to file lawsuits for production of those FOIA requests. This is coupled with the subpoenas from the Gowdy commission.

We hear about the server and the emails, but to date, it seems any request for search warrants has been nil. We cannot overlook the fact that Hillary also had and may still have 3 mobile devices, a Blackberry, and iPhone and an iPad. What about the electronic data on those devices or the meta-data trail to either back up the server data or perhaps in addition to that cache the FBI is investigating?

To date, the general conclusion is the FBI is protecting Hillary at the behest of the Justice Department, which hardly seems to be the case. The FBI has assigned their ‘A’ team to this mission and they have a multi-track objective that includes global cyber- espionage, hacking and a meticulous investigation to determine just how many laws were broken beyond the scope of the one or two prevailing violations of protecting classified material. It must be mentioned here that the FBI was also a recipient from the normal intelligence distribution list, so the FBI has their own record of transmissions that went to Hillary and other intelligence or national security personnel.

It would also be a good time as well to include the fact that the Chinese hacked the Office of Personnel management and was able to capture files of all security clearance employees which included Hillary. It is estimate that the OPM hack was determined to have occurred in June of 2014, a year or so after Hillary left her position as Secretary of State, but that OPM hack date is an estimate. Further the depths of the stolen electronic files are still being realized and those numbers are growing exponentially. Were they other known foreign hacks the FBI has open case files on, beyond the OPM intrusion?

This is an important and perhaps a top concern for the FBI, the NSA and associated cyber agencies to determine other possible foreign hacks into Hillary’s electronic files and those of her inner circle personnel. This could in fact be the single reason why the White House or the Obama National Security Council has chosen to defer answers and comments on the Hillary server-gate scandal to either the Department of Justice or the FBI. There is a high probability of a deeper and more threatening security condition of classified material. There could be the likelihood of other cyber intrusions being investigated by the FBI that have not been made public for which Hillary and her team may have been victims.

Anyway, this is hardly a matter that will be solved soon, yet it is a sure bet that almost daily more will bubble to the surface. Meanwhile, Politico has published a fairly good summary as to why Hillary and her lawyers are white knuckled and in panic mode at this moment.

One also cannot omit the entire notion that violations on behalf of Hillary, Bill, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and others at the Clinton Foundation or at the State Department could add to the building nightmares for those mentioned or for the Hillary legal team headed by David Kendall. Mixing government business with a private and global foundation where big big money moved back and forth could be the cherry on the banana split for this building scandal.

Hillary’s FBI nightmare

If the feds have Clinton’s personal emails, too, some of them are bound to come out — exactly as she feared.

The next question in the Hillary Clinton email matter is who will force the FBI to release any documents it may have retrieved from the 2016 presidential candidate’s homemade server — Congress or the courts?

The answer: A federal judge may decide to get aggressive and order the law enforcement agency to turn over any newly discovered records or at least preserve them pending further court action. But don’t expect congressional subpoenas to fly — or FBI director James Comey to get hauled to Capitol Hill anytime soon.

Key congressional committees investigating Clinton’s emails argue that the courts are better suited to force the release of federal documents. One GOP source familiar with the investigations said a congressional committee could “theoretically subpoena the FBI” to demand the contents of Clinton’s server, but judges are likely to wade into the issue first.

“I think the court is better positioned right now because of where the cases are in litigation,” the source said.

Court action, however, depends on the aggressiveness of federal judges who are now managing more than 30 Freedom of Information Act cases involving emails on accounts maintained by Clinton or her top aides.

The FBI has already rebuffed one judge’s effort to obtain messages the agency has recovered from Clinton’s server, prompting a stinging attack from Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Wednesday, key members of Capitol Hill expressed reluctance to dive in after a report surfaced that the FBI has successfully retrieved messages left on Clinton’s server. The FBI declined to confirm the Bloomberg report Wednesday.

House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy — a former federal prosecutor — made clear through a spokesman that he has no intention to cross swords with the FBI.

“Chairman Gowdy has not asked the FBI about its investigation into Secretary Clinton’s unusual and unprecedented email arrangement, nor has the Bureau offered a briefing to the committee,” Benghazi panel spokesman Jamal Ware said.

“The chairman believes the FBI is the nation’s premier law enforcement agency and he is not willing to comment on its ongoing investigation into the mishandling of classified information in connection with Secretary Clinton’s server.”

Grassley said he was concerned by anonymous leaks cited in the Bloomberg story, noting that the FBI has not responded to congressional inquiries about the investigation.

“You know it is getting a little absurd when someone at the Justice Department is apparently leaking details to the press about an investigation that the department officially refuses to admit to Congress that it is conducting,” Grassley said.

“In light of the details reported in the media, the committee will be seeking more information about the State Department’s attempts to regain possession of the email records that should have remained at the State Department in the first place. The FBI should also provide clarity on how it will handle the emails now that they have been recovered from the server.”

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he was “hopeful” that the results of the FBI inquiry will be made public. He promised to press his own inquiry but offered no specifics.

Regardless of what Congress decides to do, Hillary Clinton’s decision to have a tech firm she hired turn the server over to the FBI last month at its request greatly raises the potential that messages she has claimed to be private will eventually make it into the public domain, lawyers tracking the case said. Clinton has said that she had tens of thousands of emails deleted after determining that they contained personal information, but now the FBI appears to have at least some of those in its possession.

“This is enormously significant,” said Dan Metcalfe, a former top Justice Department official handling disclosure issues. “It’s one thing for the bureau to have taken control of the server itself, and when you add to that their technical capabilities to glean information from it, if there is information there that transcends what [Clinton] furnished to State, I think the odds are exceedingly high that that at least some if not all of that information will ultimately enter the public domain.”

While State and the National Archives have determined that about 1,500 of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over last December are entirely personal records, that determination won’t render those messages or others entirely and indefinitely off limits under the Freedom of Information Act if they turn up in the FBI’s files after being extracted from Clinton’s server, Metcalfe said.

“Those are no longer merely personal records,” said Metcalfe, a former director of Justice’s Office of Information & Privacy who now teaches law at American University. “Anything that the bureau pulls off that server, old messages, new messages, Hillary’s allegedly personal messages, Hillary’s admittedly official records is now an agency record of the bureau’s law enforcement activities.”

Metcalfe said those records could be withheld by the FBI, but once its investigation ends, the documents would have to be processed if requested. That could lead to messages State viewed as entirely personal being published at least in part, he added.

Meanwhile, action continues in the courts. On Monday, the FBI turned down U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan’s invitation to explain where its investigation stands. The response led Grassley to blast the FBI for “behaving like it’s above the law.”

Sullivan has not yet signaled what other steps he will take, if any. The plaintiff in the case, the conservative group Judicial Watch, could ask the judge to issue a subpoena to the FBI for relevant records. It would be an unusual step and likely lead to legal fireworks.

“A subpoena served upon the FBI will be resisted by the U.S. attorney’s office,” predicted former federal magistrate John Facciola.

At a hearing earlier this month in another case, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton seemed uncomfortable with the idea that Clinton and her attorneys had the final call in determining that over 31,000 emails from her private account were purely personal.

“We’re not sure exactly what type of evaluation was made of that 31,000 messages,” the judge said.

Clinton’s lawyers have argued that government employees generally have the right to determine whether emails or other records are personal and delete them. The Justice Department backed Clinton — to a point — in a recent legal brief, while stopping short of saying that a former government employee such as Clinton has the right to independently make such a determination nearly two years after leaving the government.

Walton said the scenario that played out doesn’t really fit others the courts have previously addressed.

“This is sort of a unique situation,” the judge said. “The State Department never had possession of these records.”

Still, not all judges may be interested in delving into any Clinton files now in the possession of the FBI, particularly if it appears Congress is punting the issue to the courts.

“Congress has different and more powerful ways to obtain information from the State Department than a FOIA plaintiff,” Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order Monday rejecting one group’s arguments that it needed prompt access to Clinton-related emails to aid Congress in getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks.

Another challenge for Congress is that it could be disturbing precedent by trying to bring in an outside party to verify that Clinton has turned over all her official emails or even those relevant to the Benghazi attacks. Usually, the recipient of a subpoena turns over what he or she deems responsive, not a broader set of records for someone else to review. “The way we’ve always had is a process of self-production,” Facciola said.

In cases involving search warrants for electronic records, courts have sometimes appointed magistrates to go through the records and sift out what law enforcement really needs. But the question these days is more often about how the computer that does the sorting should be programmed and who gets to decide that.

“That’s the real battle going on,” Facciola said. “Oftentimes, the technicians who create these programs don’t even agree on one methodology. … How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?”

 

 

 

 

 

Honest Summary of Obama vs. Syria and Putin

Posted on by

There are gratifying moments when honest assessments are written. We often think we have a handle on conditions both on domestic policy and that of foreign policy. Personally, this blogger think she has most conditions and circumstances figured out while motivations and other objectives remain in question. I want to see the world through others eyes, from those that own bona fides and the resume where omissions on my part are checked and re-checked.

When it comes to the National Security Council running operations in the Middle East with regard to Iraq and Syria, one must challenge those decisions and seek the grander realities. Even the White House has admitted the NatSec team is too big, but is firing on all cylinders. What?

In recent weeks, Russia has taken a proactive, aggressive posture as well as a military stance in Syria, a country he knows well and the reason is, Obama retreated handing Putin an alternate set of keys to access the region on his own terms.

John Schindler writes below a summary I find is in full agreement with my own conclusion, yet the big question in the elephant in the room….what now?

Obama’s Collapsing War on the Islamic State

For the Obama administration, the news from the Middle East keeps going from bad to worse. Vladimir Putin’s power play, moving significant military forces into Syria to support his ailing client, Bashar al-Assad, caught the White House flat footed and unsure how to respond.

Although the administration gave the Kremlin de facto control over American policy in Syria some two years ago when it walked away from its own “red line,” granting Russia a veto on Western action there, President Obama and his national security staff nevertheless seem befuddled by this latest Russian move.

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

To make matters worse for the administration, new revelations regarding flawed intelligence assessments of the Islamic State, which I told you about last week, paint a troubling portrait of organized lying at the Pentagon. Some of the more than 50 analysts at Central Command in Tampa who blew the whistle on politicized intelligence reported feeling “bullied” to make their assessments of the U.S.-led war on the Islamic State appear more successful than the facts warranted. This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

One named whistleblower has come forward about CENTCOM’s intelligence problems, explaining that he witnessed persistent, command-mandated low-balling of terrorist threats in Iraq since the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Rising terrorism in Iraq was “off message” for the White House, eager to pronounce jihadism there as dead as its leader.

David Shedd, who until recently was the acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which supplies CENTCOM with many of its analysts, spoke for colleagues still serving with his caution that such rampant politicization of intelligence cannot be tolerated. In language sure to cause heartburn at the White House, Mr. Shedd stated, “the problem is not a stand-alone case but systemic.” In response, Congress has taken interest in the allegations and President Obama’s problems there are only now starting to take political shape.

An even greater blow to President Obama’s diffident war against the Islamic State, known to the Pentagon as Operation Inherent Resolve, came this week with the stunning news that John Allen, the White House’s “war czar,” is stepping down this fall. In that job for almost exactly a year, Mr. Allen, a retired Marine four-star general whose last uniformed position was commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, enjoyed a bumpy tenure thanks to frequent meddling by West Wing staffers.

Mr. Allen, ostensibly charged with managing the war across agencies in tandem with allies, was unable to secure the military assets he believed were needed to defeat the Islamic State, for instance meeting strong White House resistance to his plans to put air controllers on the ground to guide airstrikes by Western forces. Although Mr. Allen has portrayed his resignation as a personal matter, due to his wife’s health problems, Pentagon insiders insist this an excuse to save face—mainly President Obama’s.

The main culprit is micromanagement by White House staffers, especially on the National Security Council, which is bloated and regularly treats senior military officers and diplomats like hired help. Obscenity-laced tirades by senior NSC staff are not uncommon. To make matters worse, significant differences between the NSC and the Pentagon on how to defeat the Islamic State went unresolved for months, leading to lethargy inside the Beltway while U.S. theater commanders were close to panicking about the enemy’s rise. Mr. Allen eventually had enough.

Now the White House needs to find a replacement who’s up to the job, which looks to be no easy task. “Good luck with that,” stated a senior Pentagon official, “I doubt they’ll find another four-star eager to be the dog who catches that car.” A senior NATO official explained that Mr. Allen’s departure “is really a serious blow. We had little confidence before in President Obama’s ability to defeat Daesh,” the Arabic term for the Islamic State. “Now we have none.”

As long as Mr. Putin calibrates his strategy to realistic expectations, he may avoid the overreach disasters that plagued the American wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Allen is leaving an administration in disarray in the Middle East. President Obama’s promise to grow a “moderate” Syrian opposition force of thousands, able to serve as an alternative to Assad and the jihadists alike, is in tatters, with only a handful of fighters remaining. The resulting gap has been filled by the Russians, who have entered the Levantine fray with gusto and purpose.

Secretary of State John Kerry presented the deployment of Russian jet fighters to Syria as “basically force protection,” but Pentagon planners are less charitable in their assessments. “The only ‘force’ the Russians are protecting themselves from with Su-30s,” referring to the four modern fighters deployed to Syria, “is the U.S. Air Force,” one military officer said to me.

Some Pentagon staffers are taking comfort in hopes that the Russians will find themselves mired in a messy stalemate in Syria, whose civil war has raged for four bloody and indecisive years already. That may be optimistic, however, as Russian spies and soldiers have served in Syria for over a half-century and many of them are well acquainted with Syrian realities. As long as Mr. Putin calibrates his strategy to realistic expectations, he may avoid the overreach disasters that plagued the American wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

What happens next in Syria is the top guessing game among security experts the world over right now. Has Mr. Putin finally gone too far? Can anything be salvaged from that awful conflict that could serve Western interests while stopping the rise of the Islamic State—and perhaps even save innocent lives? What is the aim of Operation Inherent Resolve now that General Allen is leaving the stage? All that’s certain at this point is that President Obama’s flailing war against the Islamic State is looking for a strategy as well as a new czar.

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a navy officer and a war college professor.

bin Ladin’s Bodyguard Transferred to SA from Gitmo

Posted on by

Usama bin Ladin’s bodyguard is transferred to Saudi Arabia.

Full detainee file is here.

  1. (S//NF) Personal Information:
  • JDIMS/NDRC Reference Name: Abdul Shalabi
  • Current/True Name and Aliases: Abd al-Rahman Shalbi Isa

Uwaydah, Abdul Haq Rahman, Saqr al-Madani, Mahmud

Abd Aziz al-Mujahid

  • Place of Birth: Medina, Saudi Arabia (SA)
  • Date of Birth: 4 December 1975
  • Citizenship: Saudi Arabia
  • Internment Serial Number (ISN): US9SA-000042DP
  1. (U//FOUO) Health: Detainee is in good health.
  2. (U) JTF-GTMO Assessment:
  3. (S) Recommendation: JTF-GTMO recommends this detainee for Continued Detention

Under DoD Control (CD). JTF-GTMO previously recommended detainee for Continued

Detention Under DoD Control (CD) on 26 October 2007.

  1. (S//NF) Executive Summary: Detainee is a member of al-Qaida and a long-term bodyguard for Usama Bin Laden (UBL), serving in that position beginning in 1999.

Detainee received specialized close combat training for his role as a suicide operative in an aborted component of the 11 September 2001 al-Qaida attacks. Detainee participated in hostilities against US and Coalition forces and was captured with a group referred to as the Dirty 30, which included UBL bodyguards and an assessed 20th 11 September 2001 hijacker.

Detainee received basic militant and advanced training at al-Qaida associated training camps.

 

October 6 & 22, Benghazi Cmte, Popcorn Buttered?

Posted on by

More emails surface in Hillary Clinton Benghazi probe

Politico: More previously-undisclosed State Department emails related to Benghazi have surfaced in a federal court filing, offering a public accounting of at least some of the records still being sought by congressional investigators.

The filing Monday in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the conservative group Citizens United describes about a dozen Benghazi-related emails that were withheld in whole or in part as State responded to one of the group’s requests seeking information about contacts between a top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and officials with the Clinton Foundation.
Most of the documents also appear to have been withheld from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating State’s response to the attack. The committee is scheduled to take public testimony from Clinton on Oct. 22.

A panel spokesman said he could not immediately confirm which of the documents had been turned over to the committee, but Citizens United President David Bossie told reporters staffers at the House panel told the group State never produced the records to Congress.

“To the best of their knowledge, the do not have these documents either, even though they are under subpoena for an extended period of time,” Bossie told reporters outside U.S. District Court in Washington after a hearing on the suit.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach told POLITICO there is no effort to impede congressional probes.

“The Department has made every effort to cooperate with the Benghazi Committee, providing 32 witnesses for interviews and over 70,000 pages of documents, including over 20,000 pages in the last month alone,” Gerlach said. “We will continue to respond to the Benghazi Committee’s requests, but as they mount and modify over time, so too must we plan accordingly for the time and resources they consume.”

In the new court filing, State Department official John Hackett said nearly all the Benghazi-related emails involved in the FOIA lawsuit involve deliberations among State officials about how to respond to Benghazi-related congressional inquiries.

In several high profile cases, including the ill-fated Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning investigation, the Obama Administration has defended its right to keep confidential its internal discussions about House and Senate investigations. The administration has also sought to extend that confidentiality to cover responses to media inquiries prompted by congressional probes.

In June, while producing records to congressional committees, the State Department confirmed it was holding back some Benghazi documents.

“A small number of documents implicate important Executive Branch institutional interests and are therefore not included in this production,” Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affiairs Anna Frifield wrote in a letter to the House Benghazi panel.

However, House staffers said the diplomatic agency has repeatedly rebuffed requests for a log of documents State is withholding. The FOIA lawsuits provide a vehicle to force the agency to identify those emails, although the substance of the messages is not disclosed.

At the court hearing Tuesday, a federal judge pressed the State Department to move more quickly to process documents requested by Citizens United and others who have been demanding records relating to Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state .

“I think there has to be some reallocation of resources, because these are atypical cases,” U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said. “This case is important to the public. The public is clamoring for information. Everyone is clamoring for information.”

After Sullivan derided State’s approach as “business as usual,” Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Shapiro insisted that State’s 63.5-member FOIA processing staff has been working long hours and weekends in “demoralizing” conditions to publish emails from Clinton’s account as well as records sought in about 100 pending FOIA lawsuits and thousands of pending FOIA requests.
“I just want to assure the court that it’s not business as usual,” Shapiro declared. “The State Department’s being crushed by obligations.”

Much of the hearing was spent discussing why the State Department failed to complete searches of emails provided by former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin by a court-ordered deadline of September 13.

Sullivan seemed to waver on how culpable State was for delays, sometimes suggesting that the agency had to wait for the cooperation of its former employees and at other points suggesting that State was being sluggish.

The judge initially attributed the delay to “foot-dragging” by Mills and Abedin in response to requests from their former agency. However, he quickly withdrew that accusation.
“So, there was foot-dragging on their part–well, there was delay. I can’t say there was foot-dragging,” Sullivan said.

Justice Department attorney Caroline Anderson insisted that the State Department was only obliged to produce records in its possession at the time the search began, so records turned over later by Mills and Abedin were not technically covered by the FOIA requests filed last year for records of contacts between top Clinton aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a private consulting firm with connections to former President Bill Clinton.

“The State Department is in compliance with every order of this court,” Anderson said.

Anderson proposed that State have until December 9 to locate and process relevant records from Mills’ and Abedin’s accounts, but eventually said it was just “the State Department’s hope” to get it done by then. That seemed to irritate Sullivan.

“How long does it take you to run a computer search?” the judge asked. “Someone pushes a button. I’m not minimizing it, but it’s a computer search.”

Citizens United attorney Matthew McGill insisted that State knew or should have known weeks ago if it was going to have trouble meeting the deadline. “They should have come to the court then….Instead, they waited,” McGill said. “That was a tactical decision on their part. It was meant to delay.”

Anderson asked that State have a month to finish the computer-based searches and then more time to review the content of the documents for sensitive national security information and other details subject to withholding. But the judge said a shorter timeline was necessary.

Sullivan ordered State to finish the searches by October 2 and set a hearing four days later.

Bossie said State’s sluggish response was part and parcel of an effort to benefit Clinton’s Democratic presidential bid by kicking the issue down the road.

“Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills have taken the specific strategy and tactics just like they did in the 90s–the same people the same strategies–to drag these efforts out, to drag out congressional committees, to frustrate justice and to frustrate the American people from getting information so that people ask questions like: ‘This has been going on for three years and don’t we know everything and isn’t this a rehash?” the conservative activist said. “That is their deliberate strategy. They’ve been doing this for 20 years…..the same Clinton playbook is played over and over and over again.”

Clinton campaign spokesmen and attorneys for Abedin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mills’s lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, called Bossie’s claim of deliberate delay “untrue.”

 

 

 

 

 

Truths Surface via Whistleblowers on Intel Reports

Posted on by

In part from JC Chairman Dempsey in position closing words:

It has to be understood at the highest levels. “When I talk to my peers in the military and when I talk to our elected officials, I talk about options and I talk about whether we’re in a period that requires either a bias for action or a bias for inaction,” he said. “But what we can’t allow is this proliferation of information to do is generate an almost insatiable appetite for more information and more options, which can actually paralyze the system.”

People want an exquisite solution, the chairman explained, and they often believe that with just a bit more information and a bit more time that a perfect solution exists. “What I’m suggesting is, as I pass the torch of the chairmanship to [Marine Corps] Gen. [Joseph] Dunford, I think that reality of making strategy in public and the risk of paralysis is much more real than it was when I became the chairman, and I can only imagine how that environment could change over the next four years.”

Whistleblower: Iraq intel ‘grossly thrown’ aside

WashingtonExaminer:

Reports about terror activity in Iraq have been “grossly thrown to the side” by officials in U.S. Central Command since the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011, according to a former Army official with the command, in an attempt to paint a rosy picture of the coalition’s efforts in the Middle East.

Retired Army Sgt. 1st Class William Kotel told the Washington Examiner that he was pushed out of his position after raising concerns about “missing pieces” in reports for Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East. He had attempted to include in his official reports information about an Iraqi target that had allegedly stolen U.S. money from the Central Bank of Iraq. But the intelligence was stripped from his final report at the behest of his superiors, he said.

Since it was first reported that dozens of intelligence analysts have accused Central Command of downplaying information that suggested terrorist groups such as the Islamic State were making strategic gains, five congressional committees have opened investigations into the matter, on top of a probe by the Pentagon’s inspector general.

Kotel, who was noncommissioned officer in charge of the Joint Targets Enterprise, said warnings about imminent terror attacks in Iraq were required to be routed through a maze of Pentagon channels, a process that could take weeks, instead of communicated directly with military units in harm’s way.

He said the policy of substituting economic or environmental information for terror-related intelligence in reports was never made explicit by Central Command’s leadership, but that he and his colleagues had “implied orders” not to report facts on the ground in Iraq.

The problem, Kotel said, is not necessarily that final reports were being edited for political reasons. Instead, it’s that key intelligence wasn’t allowed in those reports in the first place.

Kotel said it was “really disheartening” when credible intelligence about terror activity was discarded.

“They’ve spent more money and time trying to push down this intelligence … than they have actually spending time and effort on real security,” he said.

Bridget Serchak, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s inspector general, declined to answer questions about when the probe was opened or when it would conclude, but said the investigation is underway.

“The investigation will address whether there was any falsification, distortion, delay, suppression, or improper modification of intelligence information; any deviations from appropriate process, procedures, or internal controls regarding the intelligence analysis,” Serchak said.

She noted there would be “personal accountability for any misconduct or failure to follow established processes.”

Two Senate and three House committees are now investigating the matter as well.

A spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, confirmed her committee had met with a whistleblower about the issue.

Senate Armed Services Chairman. John McCain said his committee is investigating the whistleblower’s claims as well.

“This committee is disturbed by recent whistleblower allegations that officials at Central Command skewed intelligence assessments to paint an overly rosy picture of conditions on the ground,” the Arizona Republican said during a hearing last week.

Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of Central Command, told the committee he would “take appropriate action” if the Defense Department’s inspector general found evidence of wrongdoing.

“Because the allegations are currently under investigation, it would be premature and inappropriate for me to discuss this matter,” Austin said during the hearing. “I cannot speak to the specifics of the allegations.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has urged the Pentagon to conduct an anonymous survey of intelligence analysts throughout the Defense Department to get a sense of the political pressures those analysts might face.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter, two Democrats and two Republicans in the House pressed Pentagon leadership to shield whistleblowers involved in the investigation from retaliation.

Reps. Jackie Speier and Mike Thompson, both Democrats, and Reps. Duncan Hunter and Mike Coffman, both Republicans, signed the letter, which was obtained by the Examiner.

The lawmakers asked the Pentagon to report to Congress any instances of potential retaliation against whistleblowers involved in the complaint.

They pushed Carter to arrange regular briefings on the inspector general’s investigation of the intelligence tampering for “interested members” of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.

Retaliation against whistleblowers?

Hunter sent another letter to Jon Rymer, Pentagon inspector general, urging the watchdog to look into instances of retaliation against soldiers who may be attempting to speak to Congress on behalf of Sgt. Charles Martland, who is being removed from his post after confronting an Afghan police commander who had kidnapped and raped a young boy.

The Army imposed gag orders on soldiers who wanted to reach out to members of Congress, Hunter said.

But the problem extends beyond Martland’s case. The Army has a reputation for silencing whistleblowers, the California Republican wrote in his letter last week.

What’s more, the Pentagon inspector general has in the past shared information with the Army that has then been used as fodder against officials who report wrongdoing.

Because some of the whistleblowers who raised concerns about the intelligence reports are from the Army, the congressman is concerned that the military branch could discover the identities of analysts who alerted the inspector general to the tainted intelligence reports and attempt to take action against them.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, chairman of Oversight’s National Security Subcommittee, asked Carter last week for more information about the military intelligence reports on the Islamic State’s progress.

DeSantis said the oversight committee “is taking these reports very seriously” and vowed to “investigate fully.”

Maj. Genieve David, spokesperson for Central Command, said the agency “welcomes” the inspector general review.

“While we cannot comment on the specific investigation cited in the article, we can speak to the process,” David said.

She noted security assessments are based on a collection of intelligence from a variety of sources, including from military commanders on the ground and from “key” advisers.

“The multi-source nature of the assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers,” David said.

She declined to comment on allegations that the Central Command intelligence team focused on Iraq had been pressured to leave certain information out of their reports.

The intense congressional scrutiny of the intelligence reports, especially those that involve the Islamic State, has renewed criticism of the Obama administration’s strategy to combat extremism in the Middle East.

Lawmakers are escalating their calls for a review of the president’s plan for the Islamic State, with many voicing concern that airstrikes in Syria and Iraq are not effectively deterring the terrorist organization.

*** One piece of good news:

 

Cook confirmed the Sept. 10 death of senior ISIL leader Abu Bakr al Turkmani and the July 5 death of French national David Drugeon, an al-Qaida operative and explosives expert.

The press secretary said the coalition airstrike that killed Turkmani near Tal Afar, Iraq, “will help disrupt ISIL operations in the Tal Afar area and shows that their leadership is not beyond the coalition’s reach.”

Disrupting ISIL

Turkmani, an ISIL administrative amir, was part of al-Qaida in Iraq before joining ISIL and was a close associate of many ISIL senior leaders in Iraq, Cook said. Drugeon, killed by a coalition airstrike near Aleppo, Syria, belonged to a network of veteran al-Qaida operatives sometimes called the Khorasan group, who are plotting attacks against the United States, its allies and partners, Cook told reporters.

“As an explosives expert, he trained other extremists in Syria and sought to plan external attacks against Western targets,” the press secretary said.

The action, he added, will degrade and destroy ongoing al-Qaida external operations against the United States, its allies and partners. Read more detail here.