Loretta Lynch Fully Opposes Obama on Gitmo

Posted on June 21, 2016June 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Say it isn’t so…pigs flying? Video calls between soccer or basketball games?

The Obama White House has a habit of altering assessments and reports especially noted by the CENTCOM scandal. The Obama regime also did the same with the assessment profiles of those forcibly released to other countries in an effort to close Gitmo. One such country that was betrayed by the Obama administration was Ghana.

What is mind boggling is whether we should trust our President or the external people who are proving him wrong. According to US pundits, the said description as given by our leaders isn’t true for either of the men. Bin Atef in particular is a cause of concern. Long before his transfer, the intelligence analysts at Joint Task Force Guantanamo assessed him as a ‘high risk’ and ‘likely to pose a threat to the US, its interest and allies’. Atef is actually a fighter in Usama bin Laden’s former 55^th Arab Brigade and an admitted member of the Taliban.

This is in sharp contrast to the claim by Mahama, who portrays the deal as an act of humanitarian assistance, likening the Yemeni men to non-threatening refugees who have been cleared of any involvement in terrorist activities. More here.

Those former detainees released to Uruguay were to be managed and controlled by the government under the Memorandum of Understanding and release. Well, at least one has fled, allegedly to Brazil.

Exclusive: Justice Department opposes new Obama proposal on Guantanamo

Reuters: President Barack Obama is again facing dissent from within his administration – this time from Attorney General Loretta Lynch – over his plans to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison, according to senior administration officials.

Lynch, a former federal prosecutor whom Obama appointed to head the Justice Department two years ago, is opposing a White House-backed proposal that would allow Guantanamo Bay prisoners to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court by videoconference, the officials said.

Over the past three months, Lynch has twice intervened to block administration proposals on the issue, objecting that they would violate longstanding rules of criminal-justice procedure.

In the first case, her last-minute opposition derailed a White House-initiated legislative proposal to allow video guilty pleas after nearly two months of interagency negotiations and law drafting. In the second case, Lynch blocked the administration from publicly supporting a Senate proposal to legalize video guilty pleas.

“It’s been a fierce interagency tussle,” said a senior Obama administration official, who supports the proposal and asked not to be identified.

White House officials confirmed that President Obama supports the proposal. But the president declined to overrule objections from Lynch, the administration’s top law-enforcement official.

“There were some frustrations,” said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The top lawyer in the land has weighed in, and that was the DOJ’s purview to do that.”

If enacted into law, the Obama-backed plan would allow detained terrorism suspects who plead guilty to serve their sentences in a third-country prison, without setting foot on U.S. soil. The plan would thus sidestep a Congressional ban on transferring detainees to the United States, which has left dozens of prisoners in long-term judicial limbo in Guantanamo, the American military enclave in Cuba.

Obama has vowed to close the prison on his watch. But while he has overseen the release of some 160 men from the prison, the facility still holds 80 detainees.

The video plea plan has broad backing within the administration, including from senior State Department and Pentagon officials. A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment.

The most enthusiastic backers of the plan have been defense lawyers representing up to a dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees who are eager to extricate their clients from seemingly indefinite detention.

Republicans in Congress have opposed the president’s plans to empty the prison, on the grounds that many of the detainees are highly dangerous. But there is some bipartisan support for the proposal as well, a rarity in the Guantanamo debate.

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican voice on defense and national security issues, said Graham was “intrigued” by the proposal.

While support from a Republican senator would by no means guarantee the votes needed to pass, it does give the proposal a better chance than schemes that would transfer detainees from the Cuban enclave to the United States.

Obama views the video feed proposal as a meaningful step toward closing the facility and making good on one of his earliest pledges as president, administration officials said.

Of the 80 prisoners remaining in Guantanamo, roughly 30 have been approved for transfer to third countries by an interagency review board. Most of those 30 men are expected to be released from Guantanamo in coming weeks, according to administration officials.

The officials said they think that as many as 10 more prisoners could be added to the approved-for-transfer list by the review board. Finally, another 10 detainees are standing trial in military commissions.

That leaves roughly 30 detainees whom the government deems too dangerous to release but unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. As a result, those men would likely have to be transferred to detention in the United States if the prison were closed.

Administration officials say that allowing video feeds could reduce that number to somewhere between 10 and 20. The administration believes that with such a small number of prisoners requiring transfer to the United States, it would be easier to win support for closing the facility, which is run by a staff of 2,000 military personnel.

“This is the group that gives the president the most heartburn,” said the senior administration official.

Lynch and her deputies at the Justice Department argued that the laws of criminal procedure do not allow defendants to plead guilty remotely by videoconference.

Even if Congress were to pass the law, Lynch and her aides have told the White House that federal judges may rule that such pleas are in effect involuntary, because Guantanamo detainees would not have the option of standing trial in a U.S. courtroom.

A defendant in federal court usually has the option to plead guilty or face a trial by jury. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, the only option they would likely face is to plead guilty or remain in indefinite detention.

“How would a judge assure himself that the plea is truly voluntary when if the plea is not entered, the alternative is you’re still in Gitmo?” said a person familiar with Lynch’s concerns about the proposal. “That’s the wrinkle.”

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, a 36-year-old Pakistani citizen, first proposed allowing Khan to plead guilty by videoconference in a legal memo submitted to the Department of Justice in November. In 2012, Khan confessed in military court to delivering $50,000 to Qaeda operatives who used it to carry out a truck bombing in Indonesia, and to plotting with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, on various planned strikes.

Senate investigators found internal CIA documents confirming that Khan’s CIA interrogators subjected him to forced rectal feedings. Khan’s lawyers say the experience amounted to rape. He was also water-boarded.

That treatment makes it difficult for the Department of Justice to successfully prosecute Khan in federal court, according to administration officials.

When White House officials learned that Khan and other detainees were ready to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court, they thought they had found a solution.

Efforts to try detainees, including Mohammed and other Sept. 11 suspects, in military tribunals at Guantanamo have bogged down over legal disputes. Only eight defendants have been fully prosecuted. Three verdicts have been overturned.

“The beauty of a guilty plea is you don’t need a trial,” said the senior administration official who supports the video plea proposal.

In February, senior Obama aides proposed pushing ahead with video guilty pleas at an interagency meeting at the White House on the closure of Guantanamo, according to officials briefed on the meeting.

Justice Department officials said they opposed video guilty pleas. Matthew Axelrod, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, said the proposal would violate laws of criminal procedure, according to the officials.

The meeting ended with an agreement to pursue new legislation allowing the guilty pleas, the officials said, which the Department of Justice supported.

One week later, President Obama rolled out his plan to close the prison in a nationally televised announcement from the Roosevelt Room. Obama’s plan included seeking “legislative changes … that might enable detainees who are interested in pleading guilty” in U.S. federal courts.

Administration officials spent much of the next two months drafting the new law. On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, White House staff emailed all the involved agencies with a final draft of the bill, according to the officials. The bill would be submitted to Congress the following Monday, the White House email said.

That weekend, Lynch intervened unexpectedly and said the Justice Department opposed the bill. The eleventh-hour move frustrated White House staff. Deciding again to not overrule Lynch, the White House shelved the bill.

In late May, White House officials found a sympathetic lawmaker who inserted language authorizing video pleas into the annual defense spending bill. The White House drafted a policy memo publicly supporting the proposal, which is known as a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP.

Lynch opposed the idea, according to administration officials, sparking renewed tensions between the Justice Department and White House.

A SAP is the president’s public declaration on the substance of a bill, according to Samuel Kernell, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. Without one, it’s often more difficult to get lawmakers on the fence to vote the way the White House wants.

The White House again bowed to Lynch’s objections and declined to issue the SAP.

Here is One That Should Have Received a Visa, But…

Posted on June 20, 2016June 20, 2016 by Denise Simon

Athens, Greece – Working for the US Army in Afghanistan can get you killed, but there’s a silver lining.

The US Army offers its Afghan translators the right to request the Special Immigration Visa (SIV). It’s a program initiated by the US to help certain foreign employees leave their home countries and get on a path to permanent residency in the states—usually for protection from groups like the Taliban. For the last four years, the program has been renewed in the National Defense Authorization Act. This year, however, both the House of Representatives and the Senate failed to vote for the allocation of more visas, which could imperil remaining applicants.

Through that program, Muhammad, a former US Army translator in Afghanistan that I met in the port of Piraeus, Greece, should already be in the US. But like several other forgotten Afghan translators who served the United States, his visa has not come through. After being laid off by his army base in 2014, Muhammad fell into a bureaucratic gap between the United States’ promises to its employees in Afghanistan, and its rocky attempt to withdraw from the country.

Muhammad applied for the SIV in 2014. He was rejected in May 2015. According to the rejection email, his application was ruled invalid on the grounds of “Lack of faithful and valuable service.” Muhammad says that’s because he was fired—but not for lack of faithfulness or value. 2014 was simply the year that the Obama administration started closing army bases, in an early phase of withdrawal from Afghanistan. With fewer bases and fewer troops, fewer translators were needed. Muhammad was downsized by government contractor Mission Essential.

So in January 2016, he decided to make a go of it on his own. He paid $5,500 in smuggling fees to be trafficked from Afghanistan to Iran, from Iran to Turkey, and then from Turkey to Greece. By the time he arrived in the port of Piraeus in March, the 22-year-old’s life had been reduced to the phone in his pocket, the clothes on his back, and a sheaf of papers from his job with the United States Army.

His service and his perfect English together, in theory, put him in a better position than most refugees, but because he is Afghan, he isn’t even eligible for any of the expedited European relocation measures that the Syrian and Iraqi refugees sheltering in the port can claim.

Today he lives in limbo in a tent outside the port’s E1 terminal, where he can watch the Greek ferries come and go, bearing tourists to their summer holidays.

A life-threatening profession

Muhammad says that he was well aware his job translating between US and Afghan forces in the city of Khost came with a death sentence from Taliban insurgents, who oppose the current government and US intervention. He never told anyone, not even his family, what he did for a living.

“I was trying to keep a low profile,” he says, sitting cross-legged next to a ship bollard in the port. He forks a clump of rice from crinkled plastic tray on the ground in front of him. If anyone asked about his work in Afghanistan, he says, he told them he was going to school. These days, he’ll tell anyone who’ll listen.

In an Oct. 2014 episode of Last Week Tonight, US comedian John Oliver highlighted the bureaucratic nightmare that Iraqi and Afghan translators have to deal with in applying for an SIV—and the US system’s inability to take into account individual circumstances and dangers. One Afghan translator interviewed by Oliver had to wait three years and four months between applying for his SIV and arriving in the United States. In that time, the Taliban killed his father and kidnapped his younger brother.

In April 2016, Muhammad met someone who nearly met a similar fate: another former Afghan translator for the US army named Ahmad. Until Jan. this year, 25-year-old Ahmad worked for the US army in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Knowing the dangers of his job, he applied for his SIV in 2014, but the paperwork moved slowly. He went back to work on the base.

In Dec. 2015, Ahmad’s family in Kabul received a letter from the Taliban, which threatened to kill his parents if he kept working for American troops. The next month, in January 2016, Ahmad decided he could not wait for a visa any longer, and decided to flee Afghanistan with his younger brother. They paid smugglers nearly $11,000, and got as far as Piraeus. Like Muhammad, the two brothers now camp in the port. Ahmad has not yet tried to restart his visa application process.

The SIV process has five basic steps, which include several phases of petition and permission before actually applying for the visa. The State Department estimates that this entire process takes 357 business days—but clearly, it can also take much longer.

“The single biggest cause for delay is security checks,” says Betsy Fisher, policy director at the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), which provides legal assistance to refugees. A puzzling problem, considering that anyone who has worked as a translator on a US army base in a conflict zone, has already undergone extensive security checks, including periodic polygraph tests.

Those who make it to the United States…

With patience, some Afghan translators do make it to the United States. Hamed, who asked to go by his first name only, is a former translator who worked for the US Army in the provinces of Khost and Paktika between 2010 and 2015. He began his SIV application in 2012. His application was approved the next year, but he did not receive his visa until early 2015. Luckily, he and his family survived the wait.

“I told them I want to leave as quick as possible,” Hamed told Quartz about the sense of urgency he felt after multiple threats due to his work for the Army. When he got word one night that he was finally cleared to leave, he says, he was so overcome with joy that he couldn’t sleep. In May 2015, he and his family boarded a plane to the United States.

But their departure has not had an entirely happy ending. In Afghanistan, Hamed’s wife was in her last semester of law school in Afghanistan, but they left before she could finish. Hamed has a degree in information technology, but in Woodbridge, Virginia, where they now reside, he has only been able to find a job in fast food.

…and those who don’t

Today, fewer than 4,000 SIV visas are still available, according to Fisher. Roughly 10,000 SIV applicants are currently waiting for a decision.

With the Balkan route that saw a million refugees work their way into Europe in 2015 effectively shut down, Muhammad and Ahmad’s only options are to wait, apply for asylum in Greece, or go home again. Asylum in Greece is not an option, says Muhammad. “This is not a country which can bear refugees,” he says of its record-high unemployment and the economically paralyzing effects of austerity. “Greeks already have too many problems.”

Despite being stonewalled by US immigration authorities, he carries with him at all times proof of his years of army service: copies of letters of recommendation from two sergeants he worked for, as well as certificates commending his work—just in case they might come in handy.

“I have no idea what to do,” he says.

Demand the Pen and Phone for the Alien Enemies Act

Posted on June 18, 2016June 18, 2016 by Denise Simon

8 Terror Attacks in Almost 8 Years: America Has Averaged One Terror Attack a Year Under Obama’s Watch

NYPost: America has now averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year on President Obama’s watch, yet he still insists the threat from radical Islam is overblown and that he’s successfully protecting the nation.

If only hubris could be weaponized!

In the wake of Omar Mateen’s Orlando massacre, Obama whined about growing criticism of his terror-fighting strategy. But boy, does he deserve it. His record on terrorism is terrible, and Hillary Clinton should have a tough time defending it.

Here we are in the eighth year of his presidency, and the nation has now suffered eight significant attacks by Islamist terrorists on US soil or diplomatic property — an average of one attack a year since Obama’s been in office, with each new attack seemingly worse than the last.

And there’s six long months left to go.

Obama said Orlando “marks the most deadly shooting in American history.” Actually, it was the second-worst act of Islamic terrorism in American history, replacing in six short months the San Bernardino massacre as the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

Here are the previous seven:

December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy weapons.

July 2015: Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it terrorism.

May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a security guard before police took them down.

April 2013: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17 people lost limbs from the shrapnel.

September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video.

November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it “workplace violence,” even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops.

June 2009: Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

So there you have it — an average of one serious terror strike against the United States every year on Obama’s watch. And we’re not even counting the underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, Fed Ex bombs and other near-misses.

History will not be kind to this president’s record.

When he came into office, Obama vowed to defeat terrorism using “all elements of our power”: “My single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

But it soon became clear he wasn’t serious.

In June 2009, Obama traveled to Cairo to apologize to Muslims the world over for America’s war on terror. Then he canceled the war and released as many terrorists as he could from Gitmo, while ordering the FBI and Homeland Security to delete “jihad” and other Islamic references from their counterterrorism manuals and fire all trainers who linked terrorism to Islam, blinding investigators to the threat from homegrown jihadists like Mateen.

Obama also stopped a major investigation of terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood front groups and radical mosques, while opening the floodgates to Muslim immigrants, importing more than 400,000 of them, many from terrorist hot spots Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Attack after attack, the president has ridiculously maintained that global warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. Americans are fed up. Even before San Bernardino and Orlando, polls showed Obama was widely viewed as soft on Islamist terrorists. He has an absolutely awful record keeping us safe from terrorism.

And this is the security mantle Hillary is so proud to inherit? Good luck with that.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” and “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

***** Now for the human dimension to protect the homeland.

Obama has the authority to use his pen and phone on two options, declare a presidential proclamation or apply the law, The Alien Enemies Act. This can only be done during a time of war, such that the United States remains in a war since 2001. There is no question that the battlefields have remained the same while additional areas of hostilities have been added. The enemy is dynamic and has moved for at least a decade and the terror soldiers wear no flag patch of loyalty to a country but rather to a militant Islamic doctrine. Former President George W. Bush using all the legal and historical experts was correct in using the term ‘enemy combatant’.

As noted above, in the last 8 years, enemy combatants have brought the war, the hostilities and death to the homeland. This is the time for the sitting president to apply his authority which would provide more aggressive actions be taken by all law enforcement and investigative agencies in the United States asserting a higher level of protection. To not do so, is reckless, antithetical to his oath and to all the others that pledge the same oath. The United States is in a national security crisis and it must be declared. Consider, this is not just about the homeland, all foreign locations such as diplomatic posts or embassies are part of U.S. sovereign land where any location that is attack would also require presidential action.

The Alien Enemies Act is still on the books today, such that it is extraordinary that no one in Congress has in fact demanded it be applied. There are those that walk among us in this nation that are from and loyal to hostile nations.

Related reading: Truman, Proclamation 2685

This is the End of Integrity for the VA

Posted on June 17, 2016June 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Curious, but factual, it comes down to protecting the unions at the VA. Some locations operate with four unions, while the larger VA facilities have five unions, the worst being SEIU.

This is the reason, the Department of Justice is protecting legal actions at the VA and wont allow the FBI to do deeper investigations for fraud, waste and corruption. Need more proof?

Top VA benefits official Pummill retires

AirForceTimes: Danny Pummill, who took over the post last October, said in a letter to VBA employees that he had planned to retire from his deputy post in 2015 but remained on the job after being asked to oversee the agency. The retired Army colonel has worked at VA since 2010.

The job of overseeing $90 billion in veterans benefits and dozens of regional offices nationwide now falls to acting principal deputy undersecretary Tom Murphy, who has been serving in that role since Pummill’s promotion last fall.

Pummill was suspended for two weeks in March for “lack of oversight” in a relocation scandal involving two other high-ranking VA administrators, a reprimand that irritated some lawmakers who wanted harsher punishment for what appeared to be unwarranted promotions for longtime bureaucrats. Read full summary here.

VA won’t use its fast-track firing powers anymore

MilitaryTimes: Veterans Affairs officials will stop using streamlined disciplinary powers to punish senior department executives after another legal challenge to the congressionally backed process, Capitol Hill officials said Friday.

The move all but resets VA accountability rules to two years ago, when the expedited removal authority was approved by lawmakers in the wake of the department’s wait times scandal.

It also provides new urgency for a series of VA-related accountability bills stalled in Congress, given elected officials’ belief that department leaders have not been aggressive enough in dealing with misbehavior and possible criminal activity among VA employees.

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called the department’s decision infuriating.

“It is outrageous and unconscionable that the VA is choosing to blatantly ignore all of the accountability reforms set in place by the Veterans Choice Act,” he said. “Two years ago, veterans were forced to wait far too long for care because of incompetent executives. Since then, we’ve seen scandal after scandal emerge at the department.

“While some progress has been made to hold bad actors accountable, there is still a long way to go and choosing to ignore these key reforms is a slap in the face to our veterans.”

VA leaders have long complained about the value of the new disciplinary powers, noting that as written they apply only to a small segment of department employees — senior executives — and create problematic legal questions about appeals.

Only a few individuals have been disciplined under the rules, and the Merit Systems Protection Board has overturned proposed punishment in several other cases.

Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the new law speeding up executive firings is unconstitutional because it does not afford those workers proper appeals. The VA decision to dump the entire accountability process passed in 2014 comes as a direct result of that Justice Department stance.

Isakson said the announcement should be seen as a call for Congress to act quickly on new legislation.

“I am not going to stand by and watch the VA continue to look the other way while another one of its own gets away with egregious misconduct at the expense of veterans’ access to quality care and services,” he said.

Earlier this year Isakson introduced a sweeping veterans reform measure which includes new disciplinary rules, including a provision to requiring all appeals by executives to be heard by the VA secretary, and not an outside arbiter.

It would also grant other expedited firing and hiring authorities for more VA employees, and shorten the appeals process for every VA worker.

VA leaders have voiced support for the bill. Federal union officials have have objected to the provisions as too harsh, while congressional critics have labeled the plan too lenient. Isakson had hoped to move the measure through his chamber last month, but the legislation has remained stalled.

House lawmakers last summer passed a new VA accountability act along party lines, with revised whistleblower protections and different appeals provisions. That legislation has yet to move in the Senate.

VA leaders have repeatedly stated that they take disciplinary issues seriously, but also don’t see demotions and dismissals as the only way to improve service throughout the department.

Earlier this year, VA Secretary Bob McDonald told lawmakers that more than 2,600 department employees have been dismissed since he assumed office in August 2014, but lawmakers have questioned whether that figure shows an increase in accountability or normal turnover for the 300,000-plus-person bureaucracy.

Guccifer 2.0, the Hacked Trump Files from the DNC

Posted on June 15, 2016June 15, 2016 by Denise Simon

The intrusions at the DNC are noteworthy for the sophistication of the groups behind it. One of the intrusions, by a well-known cyberespionage group called Cozy Bear, appears to have happened in the summer of 2015, according to Crowdstrike‘s CTO and co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch. The second breach, involving another Russian group, Fancy Bear, happened in April this year.

Cozy Bear has been previously associated with attacks on the White House and the US. State Department. The group has also been tied to numerous attacks on US defense contractors, government agencies, financial services companies, technology firms and think tanks, Alperovich said. Fancy Bear, or Sofacy, as the group is also known, is similarly believed responsible for targeted attacks on various government and private sector organizations in multiple countries including the US, Canada, China and Japan, he said.

The two groups did not appear to be collaborating with each other or communicating in any fashion on the DNC attacks. But both targeted the same systems and the same data, employing a variety of sophisticated techniques in the process Crowdstrike’s CTO and co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch said in a blog post.

The Cozy Bear team used a Python-based malware tool dubbed SeaDaddy and another backdoor in Powershell to gain persistence on comprised DNC systems and to remain undetected on them for more than a year. According to Alperovitch, the Powershell backdoor was noteworthy for its use of a one-line command to establish an encrypted connection with command and control servers and for downloading additional modules.

The Fancy Bear group meanwhile used a different malware sample to remotely execute malicious commands on compromised DNC systems, to transmit files and to enable keylogging. The group deployed tactics like periodically clearing event logs and resetting the timestamps in files in an attempt to conceal their activities. More details here from DarkReading.

Gawker: A 200+ page document that appears to be a Democratic anti-Trump playbook compiled by the Democratic National Committee has leaked online following this week’s report that the DNC was breached by Russian hackers. In it, Trump is pilloried as a “bad businessman” and “misogynist in chief.”

The document—which according to embedded metadata was created by a Democratic strategist named Warren Flood—was created on December 19th, 2015, and forwarded to us by an individual calling himself “Guccifer 2.0,” a reference to the notorious, now-imprisoned Romanian hacker who hacked various American political figures in 2013.

The package forwarded to us also contained a variety of donor registries and other strategy files, “just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC’s network,” the purported hacker claimed over email, adding that he’s in possession of “about 100 Gb of data including financial reports, donors’ lists, election programs, action plans against Republicans, personal mails, etc.”

His stated motive is to be “a fighter against all those illuminati that captured our world.”

The enormous opposition document, titled simply “Donald Trump Report,” appears to be a summary of the Democratic Party’s strategy for delegitimizing and undermining Trump’s presidential aspirations—at least as they existed at the end of last year, well before he unseated a field of establishment Republicans and clinched the nomination. A section titled “Top Narratives” describes a seven-pronged attack on Trump’s character and record.