Category Archives: Terror

Does the Kremlin Really Have Hillary’s Emails?

Posted on by

Wouldn’t you love to read the most recent and current emails between Sidney and Hillary right now?

Putin’s Army Of Internet Trolls Is Influencing The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

Paul Roderick Gregory/Forbes

The Hillary Clinton email scandal broke more than three years ago—on March 19, 2013—with the Russian news service RT’s publication of Sidney Blumenthal’s emails to the then-Secretary of State. What most American journalists don’t realize is that Putin’s internet army continues to influence the evolution of the story.

 

My article on the Blumenthal emails, published on the same day, attracted 361,000 viewers, meaning the story was not a secret. The mainstream press ignored the story, only to see it burst upon the 2016 election scene where it occupies daily headlines. As I pointed out in my more recent piece entitled “What if Vladimir Putin Has Hillary’s Emails,” the Clinton campaign and the country could be sorely damaged if Hillary’s emails (including those she deemed “personal”) are in Kremlin hands. Even if they are not, Putin can gain leverage simply from the suspicion that he has them.

Despite the New York Times’ weak assurances that there is “no evidence of hacking,” experts agree, including a former defense secretary and head of the CIA, that Kremlin cyber forces most likely hacked Hillary’s emails, which we now know include a number of top secret documents.

I have been following the Russian and English language blogosphere using Google searches like “Does Putin/the Kremlin have Hillary’s emails?” Included are rumor-mills such as Sovershenno sekretno.ru (“Completely secret”) and kompromat.ru (“Compromising material”). In a country that thrives on gossip and rumors, even on delicate matters such as the murder of Boris Nemtsov, the Russian search yields absolute silence. The Kremlin is holding information about any possession of Hillary’s emails as close to the vest as possible.

Not that the Kremlin is not enjoying Hillary’s discomfort. The FBI investigation, the testimony of the hacker Guccifer, and the release of the state-department Inspector General report are covered daily and with glee. My own Forbes articles are prominently featured. Russia’s information technologists have elevated me from a moronic paid Forbes hack to a distinguished scholar writing for a respected publication. My words seem to count when I suggest that Putin has outsmarted Hillary Clinton.

Contrary to the Russian media silence, the U.S. media began buzzing with the May 6 publication on an obscure conspiracy-oriented website (whatdoesitmean.com) entitled “Kremlin War Erupts over Release of Top Secret Hillary Clinton Emails.” The article, written under the exotic pseudonym of Sorcha Faal, claims that a faction within the Kremlin wants Hillary’s email cache released. Fox News pundits (Sean Hannity and Judge Anthony Napolitano) cited the article as evidence that Putin has the Clinton emails. Their comments were triumphantly and derisively panned by Media Matters, who pointed out that the same website published articles on British jets fighting UFOs and a new planet threatening existence on earth.

Both Fox News and Media Matters, in my view, are both unwitting victims of a classic Putin troll attack. Whereas Washington works on the basis of leaks, Kremlin information technologists first plant their narrative in an obscure blog (like whatdoesitmean.com) and then use its blogosphere network to cascade the story until it reaches more mainstream outlets. In this case, they struck gold with references by major figures on Fox News. With the Kremlin’s psychological operations, no one knows fact from fiction (Is this just some crackpot or the Kremlin?) and first impressions tend to stick, even if the story is proven false.

There are good reasons to believe that a Putin troll attack is at work here.

First, it spins an alternate-world narrative that serves Kremlin interests in a number of ways. The Sorcha Faal article explains to the world that, yes, the Kremlin does have Hillary’s emails, thanks to Russia’s vigilant cyber forces, who obtained them in a perfectly legitimate way. After they detected hacker Guccifer’s attempted hacking of their own RT, they claim to have followed him as he attacked Hillary’s server and ended up coincidently with the cache of Hillary’s emails. The lesson: Russia has good cyber security; the incompetent U.S. does not.

The even more important message is that the CIA, knowing that the Kremlin has damaging secrets (such as the truth of Benghazi), launched a false Panama Papers operation to discredit Putin’s inner circle. The Panama Papers gambit was fabricated as a threat to prevent Russia from revealing the contents of Hillary’s emails. Thus, revelations about financial misdeeds of Putin’s inner circle can be written off as a CIA disinformation counter attack.

The story’s lightning-fast spread through the blogosphere is a second reason for believing in an organized troll attack. Faal’s crazy headline stories that Media Matters derides do not spread through the blogosphere.  Granted that the Clinton email story is hot, its cascading through the internet smells of a planned operation by Putin’s troll army.

In the case of the Clinton emails, the Kremlin appears to be using its classic “Madeline Albright declaration” approach. In the Albright case, an obscure and unidentified blogger, “Natalia 1001,” made the unsubstantiated claim that then Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, had declared that Siberia, with its rich resources, should belong to the United States, not to Russia. This false claim was repeated by multiple sources (including an FSB mind reader) until it has become an integral part of the Putin doctrine that the U.S. is an aggressive power intent on Russia’s demise.

We are no closer to proof of whether Putin has Hillary’s emails or not. What we have is a troll attack that lays out a Kremlin narrative linking the Clinton emails to the Panama Papers. We expect the Kremlin to build on this narrative as time passes. In either case, Putin is sitting in the catbird seat. The mere suspicion that he has the email cache gives him leverage over the U.S. election. Those who argue that Clinton’s use of an insecure private server is a minor dereliction do not understand the consequences of having the Secretary of State’s correspondence in the hands of a hostile nation.

We can expect the Kremlin to use Hillary’s email scandal to its advantage. It is up to Putin to determine the timing, which will be most likely related to the U.S. election cycle. Let’s hope that Donald Trump uses this lesson to retract his favorable comments about Vladimir Putin.

State Dept Blocking Hillary’s Emails on TPP

Posted on by

It was several months ago that there was a major controversy on the Transpacific Partnership Pact. Everyone was and sorta is against it, when no one especially knew why as none of the text has been released that spells out any controversy. It is quite curious that even the leader of WikiLeaks put out a reward for anyone to provide chapters of the trade pact. Many in Congress have not even seen the documents while others have to go to a special room and read under an ‘eyes only’ condition.

If Hillary has a position in electronic communications over the trade deal, it is a legitimate part of her vetting but now we have John Kerry the current Secretary of State apparently running interference for Hillary or….for the trade deal….or both. It appears this is once again a case where FOIA requests on certain topics and certain people are forwarded to the White House for pre-approval, so in this case, the Obama top leadership could have their fingerprints on this matter as well.

The other curious item is, are these emails part of a separate Hillary release that is unknown to us?

This is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Could it be that Hillary’s emails prove she is against the TPP?

State Department Blocks Release Of Hillary Clinton-Era TPP Emails Until After The Election

IBTimes: Trade is a hot issue in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. But correspondence from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department aides about a controversial 12-nation trade deal will not be available for public review — at least not until after the election. The Obama administration abruptly blocked the release of Clinton’s State Department correspondence about the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), after first saying it expected to produce the emails this spring.

The decision came in response to International Business Times’ open records request for correspondence between Clinton’s State Department office and the United States Trade Representative. The request, which was submitted in July 2015, specifically asked for all such correspondence that made reference to the TPP.

The State Department originally said it estimated the request would be completed by April 2016. Last week the agency said it had completed the search process for the correspondence but also said it was delaying the completion of the request until late November 2016 — weeks after the presidential election. The delay was issued in the same week the Obama administration filed a court motion to try to kill a lawsuit aimed at forcing the federal government to more quickly comply with open records requests for Clinton-era State Department documents.

Clinton’s shifting positions on the TPP have been a source of controversy during the campaign: She repeatedly promoted the deal as secretary of state but then in 2015 said, “I did not work on TPP,” even though some leaked State Department cables show that her agency was involved in diplomatic discussions about the pact. Under pressure from her Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, Clinton  announced in October that she now opposes the deal — and has disputed that she ever fully backed it in the first place.

While some TPP-related emails have been released by the State Department as part of other open records requests, IBT’s request was designed to provide a comprehensive view of how involved Clinton and her top aides were in shaping the trade agreement, and whether her agency had a hand in crafting any particular provisions in the pact. Unions, environmental organizations and consumer groups say the agreement will help corporations undermine domestic labor, conservation and other public interest laws.

If IBT’s open records request is fulfilled on the last day of November, as the State Department now estimates, it will have taken 489 days for the request to be fulfilled. According to Justice Department statistics, the average wait time for a State Department request is 111 days on a simple request — the longest of any federal agency the department’s report analyzed. Requests classified as complex by the State Department can take years.

Earlier this year, the State Department’s inspector general issued a report slamming the agency’s handling of open records requests for documents from the Office of the Secretary. Searches of emails “do not consistently meet statutory and regulatory requirements for completeness and rarely meet requirements for timeliness,” the inspector general concluded.

Last year, a Government Accountability Office report found that at the agencies it surveyed, there was not political interference in responding to open records requests. However, last month, a conservative group filed a lawsuit alleging that an Obama administration directive has deliberately slowed the response to open records requests that deal with politically sensitive material.

Nate Jones of the National Security Archive told IBT that whether or not the State Department’s move to delay the release of TPP-related correspondence is politically motivated, it reflects a systemic problem at the agency.

“In my opinion it is more incompetence than maliciousness, but either way, it is a gross error by FOIA processors to not get these documents out before the election,” said Jones, whose group helps journalists obtain government records. “Their inefficiency is doing great harm to the democratic process.”

 

IRS Targeting List, Much Worse than Reported

Posted on by

What say you when it is proven that a government agency does go after individuals and organizations for their beliefs and there is no consequence? It is tyranny but does anyone care anymore?

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been on an assertive mission to impeach the IRS Commissioner with good reason, but in truth there are many more that need to be in that impeachment net beyond John Koskinen.

   

Where is the outrage? Has this report been turned over to the FBI? Will the Department of Justice seek any prosecutions? This matter is in our hands, what are you willing to do about it? Anything?

IRS finally reveals list of tea party groups targeted for extra scrutiny

WashingtonExaminer: More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.

The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.

But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.

The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.

That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays,

Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who’s pursuing the case on behalf of NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of political bias.

“As we have identified in our filings in this case, important questions still exist regarding changes to the IRS‘ case listings that occurred after the IRS learned that the [inspector general] and congressional investigations had begun,” he said. “Based on these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real possibility — if not probability — exists that the IRS modified its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups.”

He said if that did happen, it would have “tainted” the list the IRS has now released.

The IRS declined to comment, saying its filing spoke for itself.

A series of investigations found the IRS did ask intrusive questions and did delay applications for years, in violation of policy. But so far no investigation has found any order from the White House to conduct the targeting.

‘Tea’ and ‘patriot’ groups

 

Sixty of the groups on the list released last month have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot,” eight refer to the Constitution, and 13 have “912” in their name — which is the monicker of a movement started by conservatives. Another 26 group names refer to “liberty,” though that list does include some groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.

Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the word “occupy” in their name.

And then there are some surprising names, including three state or local chapters of the League of Women Voters — a group with a long history of nonprofit work.

Some of the most active and prominent tea party groups snared in the targeting aren’t on the class-action list. At least some of them opted not to be part of the joint legal action to preserve their own lawsuits.

 

Congressional Republicans say IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was brought in by President Obama to clean up the agency after the targeting scandal, has failed — and even misled Congress during the investigation. Some Republicans are even pursuing impeachment against Mr. Koskinen, accusing him of defying a subpoena for former senior IRS executive Lois G. Lerner’s emails by allowing computer backup tapes to be destroyed.

Even outside of impeachment, the House GOP has proposed a new round of budget cuts for the IRS, aimed at trying to deliver a message that Mr. Koskinen’s tenure has been unacceptable.

And the tax agency is still defending itself in a series of court cases. In addition to the NorCal class action case, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is currently considering an appeal by tea party groups who argue the targeting is still going on.

“One thing remains clear: Continued litigation is the only way to force the IRS‘ hand in order to expose its targeting scheme that was coordinated with the help of the DOJ and other federal agencies so that we can obtain justice for those patriotic Americans who were unconstitutionally targeted by their own government,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the appeals case.

In yet another case, the conservative group Cause of Action has been pursuing the IRS to turn over documents the group believed would show White House officials requesting secret taxpayer information on conservatives.

But in a filing Friday, the IRS said it has conducted a final search and can’t find any evidence that the White House either asked for or received protected information.

Phoenix: The DHS Madness/Corruption Continues

Posted on by

In January of this year, this site published an article about Serco and the DHS government contractor mentioned in this piece below has an interesting relationship with Serco. The scandal centered in the United Kingdom. But read on, it is business as usual for the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing Vanloads of Illegal Aliens Away from Border

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is quietly transporting illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to Phoenix and releasing them without proper processing or issuing court appearance documents, Border Patrol sources tell Judicial Watch. The government classifies them as Other Than Mexican (OTM) and this week around 35 were transferred 116 miles north from Tucson to a Phoenix bus station where they went their separate way. Judicial Watch was present when one of the white vans carrying a group of OTMs arrived at the Phoenix Greyhound station on Buckeye Road.
OTM6-2016The OTMs are from Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Guatemala and Border Patrol officials say this week’s batch was in custody for a couple of days and ordered to call family members in the U.S. so they could purchase a bus ticket for their upcoming trip from Phoenix. Authorities didn’t bother checking the identity of the U.S. relatives or if they’re in the country legally, according to a Border Patrol official directly involved in the matter. American taxpayers pick up the fare for those who claim to have a “credible fear,” Border Patrol sources told JW. None of the OTMs were issued official court appearance documents, but were told to “promise” they’d show up for a hearing when notified, said federal agents with firsthand knowledge of the operation.

 

A security company contracted by the U.S. government is driving the OTMs from the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector where they were in custody to Phoenix, sources said. The firm is called G4S and claims to be the world’s leading security solutions group with operations in more than 100 countries and 610,000 employees. G4S has more than 50,000 employees in the U.S. and its domestic headquarters is in Jupiter, Florida.

Judicial Watch is filing a number of public records requests to get more information involving the arrangement between G4S and the government, specifically the transport of illegal immigrants from the Mexican border to other parts of the country. The photo accompanying this story shows the uniformed G4S guard that transported the OTMs this week from Tucson to Phoenix.

Related reading: G4S Corruption Globally

Outraged Border Patrol agents and supervisors on the front lines say illegal immigrants are being released in droves because there’s no room to keep them in detention. “They’re telling us to put them on a bus and let them go,” said one law enforcement official in Arizona. “Just move those bodies across the country.” Officially, DHS denies this is occurring and in fact earlier this year U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske blasted Border Patrol union officials for denouncing this dangerous catch-and-release policy. Kerlikowske’s scolding came in response to the congressional testimony of Bandon Judd, chief of the National Border Patrol Council, the labor union that represents line agents. Judd told lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee that illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions can be released immediately and disappear into the shadows. Kerlikowske shot back, telling a separate congressional committee: “I would not stand by if the Border Patrol was — releasing people without going through all of the formalities.”OTM6-2016-2

Yet, that’s exactly what’s occurring. This report, part of an ongoing Judicial Watch investigation into the security risks along the southern border, features only a snippet of a much broader crisis in which illegal aliens are being released and vanishing into unsuspecting American communities. The Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest addressed this issue just a few weeks ago in a hearing called Declining Deportations and Increasing Criminal Alien Releases – The Lawless Immigration Policies of the Obama Administration. Judd, the Border Patrol Union chief, delivered alarming figures at the hearing. He estimated that about 80% of apprehended illegal immigrants are released into the United States. This includes unaccompanied minors who are escorted to their final destination, family units and those who claim to have a credible fear of persecution in their native country. Single males that aren’t actually seen crossing into the U.S. by Border Patrol agents are released if they claim to have been in the country since 2014, Judd added.

***** G4S:

G4S supports the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CPB), with its operations at the U.S. Mexico border and with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to transport illegal immigrants in selected urban areas. Annually, our G4S fortified buses log millions of miles and transport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, while freeing up front line CPB and ICE personnel for other essential services.

Related reading: G4S Website and the scandal of the CEO.

 

Damn Hillary, What the Heck?

Posted on by

So exactly how does the Hillary team and all her Democrat friends keep defending this? Maybe some questions need to be asked what violations of the Espionage Act is in their respective history.

What does Dianne Feinstein know? Are they emails between George and Amal Clooney and Hillary?

Off the shelf encryption software, unprotected mobile phone calls, text messages on foreign communications networks, and then has anyone asked if she shredded the hardcopies she always asked to be printed and delivered to her personally?

Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system.

Breitbart: Federal records reveal that Clinton swapped these highly classified names on an email account that was vulnerable to attack and was breached repeatedly by Russia-linked hacker attempts. These new revelations — reminiscent of the Valerie Plame scandal during George W. Bush’s tenure — could give FBI investigators the evidence they need to make a case that Clinton violated the Espionage Act by mishandling national defense information through “gross negligence.”

Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949.

The State Department produced a document to Judicial Watch in April 2014 that identifies different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG,” which it defines as information “Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute … Central Intelligence Act of 1949.”

“That’s what it suggests,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News, referring to the indication that Clinton disclosed the names of CIA-protected intelligence sources, based on the B3 redactions.

The CIA justifies “(b)(3)” redactions with this description: “(b)(3) Applies to the Director’s statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency, in accord with the National Security Act of 1947 and the CIA Act of 1949, respectively.”

The State Department declined to comment. “Per the colleague who handles this issue, we are not speaking to the content of emails,” State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson told Breitbart News.

 

Here are some examples of (b)(3) redactions;

Naming the defense attaché in Malta

On October 16, 2011, recent U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec sent an email to Cheryl Mills with the subject line “TIME SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL – Malta Trip Backgrounder for the Secretary – Confidential.”

Kmiec wrote to Mills, “I know from current events that your life must be a whirlwind. I know that if there ever was someone who could tame the whirlwind, it would be you. Just read the news report of the Secretary’s stop in Malta next week. Thank you for arranging this. This letter and the accompanying clips I believe will help make the Secretary’s visit a highly successful and well received one.”

In the memo, Kmiec revealed the name of a top defense attaché in the country. That name was later classified by the State Department with three different classifications: 1.4 (D) to connote “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources,” B1 to connote “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy,” and “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

“The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [REDACTED] beloved and hardworking – and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for [illegible] traffickers and terror related figures,” Kmiec wrote.

Mills forwarded the memo directly to Clinton’s private email account at clintonemail.com with the note “Fyi background.”

Clinton replied to Mills and CC’ed Huma Abedin with the confidential information, writing, “I need enough time there to meet. Hague is there today and doing all the right meetings. So, I’m copying Huma to reinforce my desire to squeeze more out of a too quick trip.”

When he sent the memo to Mills, Douglas Kmiec had been out of his Ambassador to Malta job for several months. Kmiec was a big supporter of President Obama. He garnered criticism in a 2011 inspector general report for ignoring directives from Washington and for spending too much time writing articles about religion.

Naming the guest in her office 

On December 15, 2011, Clinton’s office manager Claire Coleman sent out Clinton’s daily schedule to Clinton’s private email account and to Abedin and others.

The schedule included a five-minute Presidential Daily Briefing in the Secretary’s office between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM.

“Note: Official Photo following w/ [Redacted]” the schedule read, blanking out the name of the person who Clinton was taking a photo with. That redaction was marked “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” in addition to other redactions.

Clinton’s public schedule released for that day begins at 9 AM, after the classified photo op.

Petraeus’ chief of staff

On March 14, 2012, a redacted name sent Cheryl Mills an email with the subject line “URGENT — From Dave Petraeus’s Chief of Staff…”

The sender’s name was marked with a “B3” redaction to connote violation of the CIA statute.

“Dear Cheryl,” the email began, followed by a vast section of redacted material. Those paragraphs were marked with several classifications including “B3 CIA PERS/ORG.”

The email’s closing paragraphs were also marked with B3 redactions.

“Does all of that sound ok to you?” the message continued. “If so, may I please ask you to get word around immediately [B3 Redaction] only in those circumstances where he deems that to be appropriate and the best way forward? Thanks much and cheers, [B3 Redaction].”

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

On September 15, 2012, a B3 redacted name sent an email to Jake Sullivan numerous redacted names with a redacted subject line, most of text redacted, “Per the discussion at Deputies, here are the revised TPs for HPSCI [The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence].”

The email was later forwarded to Clinton, who told an aide, “PLs print.”

“Iran Insights”

On September 2, 2009, Jackie Newmyer of Long Term Strategy Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts sent an email directly to Clinton’s private account with the subject line “Iran Insights From [Redacted]” that included the B3 redaction code:

Secretary Clinton,

Last week I traveled to Israel [REDACTED] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become Israel’s next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [REDACTED]. Yesterday, [REDACTED] Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [REDACTED] personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.

The email included sensitive information including the following:

If Iran acquires a nuclear capability, no single American/allied countermeasure will be adequate. Something like the “flexible response” posture from the Cold War will be required, necessitating a range of actions from enhancing the US deterrent presence — nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles in the Arabian Sea — to bolstering regional actors’ defenses.

Israeli leaders should be able to contain the damage to the Israeli population’s morale from an Iranian bomb, but this will require careful management of public statements. There is a tension between building up support for action against the Iranian nuclear program now and delivering the kind of reassurance that will be necessary once the capability has been acquired.

Clinton replied that she would like to discuss the matter with Jackie.

Jackie replied:

I will be in Washington for a day-long meeting on Thursday this week [B3 REDACTED] and my travel plans are flexible, so I could meet you any time on Wednesday afternoon, after 5 pm on Thursday, or any time on Friday morning. If those times do not work, I would be happy to come down at your convenience.

Clinton and Jake Sullivan then set up a meeting with Jackie.

Naming someone at the ‘Pre-Brief’

On November 11, 2011, Clinton’s special assistant Lona J. Valmoro sent an email directly to Clinton’s private email address with the subject line “Pre-Brief.”

Valmoro wrote:

“MS — Kurt said that he has no reservations about Toria joining the pre-brief so I will confirm.

The manifest for the meeting will be:

Kurt Campbell

Jake Sullivan

Evan Mederios, NSS

Admiral Willard

Kin Moy

Toria Nuland

[REDACTED] per Kurt’s request”

That last name on the list was redacted with “B6” and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” classifications.

‘See Traffic’

On March 14, 2012, Mills sent an email to then-U.S. Ambassador to Algeria Henry Ensher with the subject line “Connecting.”

“I hope your visit to DC is going well,” Mills said before writing a chunk of text that is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

Mills’ redacted text clearly included a name because she then wrote, “B/f I could respond w/our protocol he advised that the matter had been resolved. Can you advise as to what accommodation was worked out?”

Ensher replied, “Sorry. Had not seen this until en route back to post. Accommodation was to have elizabeth go to a dinner meeting, but not the next day session with senior counterpart. Bare objectives of visit were achieved but we blew an opportunity to make the larger point about civ control of mil, which is critical in dealing with algerian leaders.”

Ensher’s next paragraph is redacted with 1.4 (D), B1, and also the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

“Good work on com conf. Thx,” Ensher concluded.

After sending another email to Ensher, Mills forwarded the chain to Clinton’s private email account and said “See traffic.”

The departing diplomat

On December 12, 2011, Mills sent an email to Clinton’s private email account with the subject line “FW: Thank you for your time today.”

“[REDACTED] last day is Thursday,” Mills wrote, adding that “Lona” would arrange a photograph for the man with Clinton and his daughter and asking Clinton for feedback on the employee. The redacted portion had a B6 and a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.

“He did a good job,” Clinton replied.

The Taliban

On March 25, 2012, Jake Sullivan forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a chain involving a meeting involving Pakistan and the Taliban that had a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction in it. The subject line was “Fw: MG-Z in Dushanbe.”

Hill testimony

On January 23, 2013, Mills forwarded to Clinton’s private email address a transcript of Clinton’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the subject line “Fw: Testimony as Prepared for Delivery to SFRC & HFAC.”

The chain included an email that a person with a redacted name sent to Mills saying, “You know, she’s pretty damned good.”

The chain also included an email that Mills sent with the transcript to various people including White House adviser Ben Rhodes and various individuals with redacted names, including two people whose names are blotted out with “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redactions.

CC’s

On July 25, 2010, Jake Sullivan forwarded Clinton a long email chain with the subject line “Fw: Digest from NyTimes and Guardian [Full E-Mail List].”

The highly redacted email chain was at one point forwarded to “[Full E-Mail List]” and includes on multiple occasions an individual whose name is blotted out with a “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” redaction.