Russian/Assad Barbarity in Aleppo, Orders from IRGC

Posted on September 28, 2016September 28, 2016 by Denise Simon

Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior advisor to the supreme leader and former commander of the IRGC.

Commander: IRGC supplies intelligence to Russia for airstrikes in Syria

A top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander told Iranian media last week that the Guard and allies supply intelligence to Russia for airstrikes in Syria. Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, who is senior advisor to the supreme leader and was IRGC chief commander from 1997 through 2007, made the remarks in a lengthy television interview on Sept. 22.

“The Russians are responsible for aerial support of ground units, meaning those who are fighting on the ground are the Syrian army, Syrian popular forces, and some advisory forces and/or Hezbollah forces. Russia largely plays the role of supporting these [forces] by air,” Safavi said.

“Many victories like the capture of Aleppo would not have been possible without movement on the ground and only with air support,” Safavi continued. “The Russian air support was of course effective, but the ground forces gave them the intelligence that, for example, [told them] which terrorists were in what area.”

There is a kernel of truth to these statements. The IRGC-led Shiite expeditionary forces, which are comprised of IRGC proxies from Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, were instrumental in the encircling of the rebel-held eastern Aleppo city in late July, and the reimposition of the siege in early September after the coalition of Islamists, Salafists, and rebels broke the initial siege in early August. A relentless and intense Russian bombing campaign has been a crucial factor in the successes of the pro-regime coalition. [See LWJ report, Soleimani’s presence in Aleppo underscores strategy of crushing rebels.]

Safavi, however, overplays the role that the Syrian Arab Army and the IRGC-backed Syrian National Defense Forces, a pro-regime militia, have played in the recent battles for Aleppo in order to bury the extent to which Assad relies on foreign patrons as foot soldiers and planners in arguably the most important battle of the civil war yet.

The ground forces in Aleppo have been primarily led by Iranian military officers in coordination Russian and Syrian officers. The deaths of senior IRGC commanders attest to the their involvement.

Safavi says that units under the supervision of IRGC or Hezbollah operatives, which have had a more active presence in Syria in recent years, conduct on-the-ground intelligence collection. The main planning and target selection would be coordinated between the Iranians, Russians, and Syrians. The first two may take the lead.

Based on Safavi’s statements, collection for Russian sorties elsewhere in which Syrian forces have more presence may fall on them, under the direction of Russian officers.

The strategic command headquarters that oversees all operations includes Russians, Iranians, Syrians, and IRGC-backed proxy commanders. There is lingering tensions and mistrust in this alliance, particularly between the Iranians and Russians. For now, at least, they share intelligence towards the common objective of achieving military victory in Aleppo.

Amir Toumaj is a Research Analyst at Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

**** Why is this so important? The White Helmets and the Obama administration continues to ignore Russian barbarity in Syria for the sake of an already peace deal and or truce talks with Russia.

As noted here:

U.S. Was Warned of Attack on Aid Workers in Syria

The Obama administration, desperate to save a shattered Syrian ceasefire, seems to have ignored concrete intelligence of an atrocity to come.

Weiss: Two days prior to devastating aerial attacks, Michael Ratney, the U.S. special envoy to Syria, was told the Assad regime was planning to hit the Aleppo facilities of the Syrian Civil Defense, a volunteer rescue group.

Raed al-Saleh, the head of the organization, which is widely known as the White Helmets, was in Manhattan last week, where he told not only Ratney, but envoys from the Netherlands, Britain, and Canada. He said intercepted communications from military officers in the Assad regime signaled imminent plans to bomb several rescue centers, according to two sources who were in the room when al-Saleh was transmitting this intelligence.

“We just received a message from the spotters, just an hour ago, they detected messages from the regime radio that they will attack [Syrian Civil Defense] centers in northern Aleppo,” one of those sources jotted down during the meeting, quoting al-Saleh. “First with surface to surface to missiles and, if they miss, they will use spies on the ground to adjust coordinates and come back.” Read more here from The Daily Beast.

Comey’s Testimony, Doesn’t Remember, Doesn’t Know

Posted on September 28, 2016September 28, 2016 by Denise Simon

Very few of the responses Comey gave in his testimony made any sense especially to former prosecutors unless you see that Comey has no worries about his job as he mentioned in the hearing he still has 7 years left on his government contract. He defended the entire FBI investigation and said he would do nothing different including based on new evidence he would be unlikely to re-open the investigation case. Sigh…

A side note: When Hillary did meet with the FBI, she had 8 people with her, there were 4 from the FBI and 4 from the Department of Justice.

In fact, David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at The Federalist agrees with me.

This is a terribly sad dad for America relying on the FBI leadership and what is worse a terribly sad day in America for the fact that Hillary and her entire team operates with wild abandon.

So….

Sometimes, when convenient, Cheryl Mills is Hillary’s lawyer while other times just her aide de camp.

Meanwhile…AFTER the Congress served and order to preserve documents and records and issued a subpoena, Mills ordered the IT personnel to destroy the emails. The FBI ignored this condition as did the Department of Justice and issued Mills in fact complete immunity, which is to clarify immunity from obstruction and destruction of documents. The IT person finally did so many months later after the initial phone call with Mills and other lawyers using BleachBit.

Meanwhile, the FBI was able to gain access to a laptop computer that did in fact have emails on it and many of those emails were….YES ….classified. The laptop was not approved by the State Department or any other agency to have classified material.

Another meanwhile, you can watch the hearing today before the House Judiciary Committee where exacting questions were asked of FBI Director Comey and often his responses were: I don’t remember, I don’t know or I don’t see it that way.

The exchange with Congressman Jim Jordan and Congressman Darryl Issa (second round) were especially important.

FNC:

FBI Director James Comey testified Wednesday that former Hillary Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and another top aide had “some” classified material on laptops they turned over to the bureau in its probe of Clinton’s private server use as secretary of state — yet the aides still received immunity.

Comey made the acknowledgment while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, where Republicans had tough questions about a newly revealed set of immunity deals in the Clinton case.

The director claimed the findings did not constitute a crime but declined to directly answer a question on whether having classified material on a laptop or other private electronic device was against federal regulations.

“You’d have to know the circumstances,” Comey told committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

The FBI’s two-year investigation into the private server found numerous Clinton server emails contained classified information and she was “extremely careless.”

However, the agency concluded the investigation without recommending criminal prosecution, and the Justice Department closed the case this summer.

“It seems clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies involving the passing of classified information through her private email server. The FBI, however, declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable bases,” Goodlatte said Wednesday. “We, as Congress and the American people, are troubled how such gross negligence is not punished.”

Mills’ testimony in the FBI investigation and potential testimony before Congress was not covered in the immunity deal.

****

FNC: In her interviews, Hanley told the FBI that during her time at the State Department, she learned “specifically how to handle and transport classified information/paper but could not recall who provided the training.”

Two emails from Hanley were marked classified with a c for “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Fox News first reported some of the emails contained classified markings despite Clinton’s public claims.

The FBI document said “Hanley received a Top Secret/SCI clearance at DoS.” Despite the training, during one trip to Russia, Hanley was specifically criticized for leaving a classified document in a hotel suite she shared with Clinton during the trip. “Hanley was informed by DS (Department of State) that the briefing book and document should have never been in the suite,” the document said.

She was also involved in the response to the hack by Guccifer, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar.

It was during her second interview with the FBI on June 23 that Hanley finally revealed details of a conference call she had with Abedin and top Clinton Foundation fundraiser Cooper as they scrambled “over concerns related to a reported hack by Sidney Blumenthal’s email account” in the spring of 2013, first reported by The Smoking Gun.

In the latest documents, the FBI redacted another individual’s name who apparently was on that conference call.

Pentagon on drone threat to nuclear sites, then Hillary

Posted on September 27, 2016September 27, 2016 by Denise Simon

Stripes: MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, North Dakota— Throughout the agricultural fields that dominate North Dakota,150 Minuteman III nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles are encased in silos in the ground.

Each silo contains one missile, dug into deep holes on private farmlands, three to 10 miles apart. From the air, the silos are hard to detect.

But the positions are in the open, except for an antenna and some fencing, so the sites are often approached by animals or non-threatening drones, said Col. Jason Beers, commander of the 91st Security Forces command at the base.

“There are a lot of [unmanned aerial vehicles] with commercial farming,” he said.

The base hasn’t had a security issue with drones at the silos, though there isn’t a lot they can do if they did, Beers said.

“It’s not restricted airspace,” he said.

The proliferation of drones in the United States and the potential security threat that they pose to the nuclear facilities, nuclear weapons storage areas and military installations has gained the attention of the Pentagon and Congress, a defense official told Stars and Stripes on the condition of anonymity.

“It’s certainly got more attention as it has become more common among our adversaries,” the official said. “Even [the Islamic State group] has played with UAVs.”

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing potential defenses against an intruding drone, as are several private companies. The challenge is many of the methods that could be used to defend against a drone – whether shooting it down or disabling it with a laser or electronic or radio interference – could also harm nearby infrastructure or other aircraft.

But the Pentagon will also need the authority to contain or shoot down drones near the silos. Gaining the authorities and creating policy to defend silos against drones is a concern of Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command.

At the Air Force’s annual convention last week, Rand told reporters the proliferation of drones has the service working on options to best to protect the missile silos, bombers and weapons storage facilities under his care.

“I will tell you there have been recent examples of extended [UAVs] over some areas that we don’t particularly like them to be on — I’m not comfortable with that,” he said.

But the policy to deal with it has to come from multiple agencies that have jurisdiction, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and others, Rand said.

“It’s not just something where I can tell the guys to go out and take a shotgun and point it up and shoot down something flying over,” he said. “We as a nation need to deal with this potential emerging threat.”

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Alabama, introduced legislation in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act to require the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, which is responsible for securing the nation’s nuclear material and weapons and energy programs, to get started on a solution.

“Some of my colleagues and I have been tracking how these systems could pose a threat to national security. [UAV] incursions and unauthorized overflights of critical defense facilities continue to increase — and, unfortunately, the laws and regulations governing these things haven’t kept up,” Rogers said.

The bill passed the House, but is still being negotiated in the Senate.

“We have to face the fact that yes, the possibility exists” that a UAV could be used to attack a U.S. nuclear facility, Rand said. “We need to be able to deal with it.”

****

Then there is Hillary:

Clinton Privately Opposed Major U.S. Nuclear Upgrade

Dem nominee breaks with key Obama defense policy in previously unreleased recording

FreeBeacon: Hillary Clinton privately told supporters this year that she would likely scrap a major upgrade to the United States’ nuclear weapons program, according to leaked audio of her remarks.

At a private event in McLean, Va., in February, Clinton revealed that she would likely cancel plans to upgrade the nation’s cruise missile arsenal. “I certainly would be inclined to do that,” she told a questioner who asked about rolling back the Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile program.

Audio of Clinton’s comments at a gathering of major campaign supporters in February were revealed by hackers who breached the email account of a campaign staffer. One email released by the hackers contained a recording of Clinton’s remarks and a subsequent question-and-answer session.

The LRSO question came from Andy Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense who oversaw the Pentagon’s nuclear weapons programs. He and William Perry, who served as secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton, called for the cancellation of the LRSO program last year.

“Will you cancel this program if President Obama doesn’t in the next 11 months and lead the world in a ban on this particularly destabilizing, dangerous type of nuclear weapon?” Weber asked at around 39:00 in the recording.

Clinton said she would be “inclined” to do so. “The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed,” she said.

Her campaign did not respond when asked if her position has changed since then.

Canceling the LRSO program would be a major break from Obama administration policy, which has placed significant emphasis on the missile as a key component of its wide-ranging efforts to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

About 1,000 LRSO missiles are scheduled to replace the Air Force’s Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs) by 2030. The ALCM program has formed a key component of U.S. nuclear deterrence policy since the early 1980s.

The Air Force released long-awaited requests for proposals from defense contractors in July. It estimated that the government will pay $17 billion for a new arsenal of LRSO missiles, though critics have pegged the cost at as much as $30 billion.

Emails released by the State Department in response to Freedom of Information Act requests show that Clinton was briefed on aspects of the LRSO debate while serving as secretary of state.

After a November 2010 meeting between high-level Pentagon officials and former Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), then the Senate’s third-ranking Republican, the State Department’s top legislative affairs official informed Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that the administration was “committed to LRSO.”

Clinton has appeared unfamiliar with details of the Obama administration’s plans for nuclear weapons modernization in statements since then. Clinton avoided a straight answer when asked about those plans at a campaign event in January, but expressed skepticism.

“Do you oppose plans to spend a trillion dollars on an entire new generation of nuclear weapons systems that will enrich the military contractors and set off a new global arms race?” she was asked.

Clinton responded, “Yeah I’ve heard about that. I’m going to look into that. That doesn’t make sense to me.”

Former Air Force launch officer John Noonan disagreed with Clinton’s opposition to the LRSO program and other aspects of the Obama administration’s nuclear modernization efforts. But he is skeptical that Clinton will actually follow through on that opposition.

“There’s been tremendous advancements in Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, coupled with an atrophy in American capability,” noted Noonan, a former Jeb Bush campaign aide critical of both Clinton and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“The Obama Administration, to their credit, has acknowledged this and have budgeted for the LRSO,” he said. “A President Clinton’s Pentagon will be faced with the same tough reality.”

As for Clinton’s remarks to Weber in February, Noonan guessed that she was “just petting a donor on the head and telling him he’s pretty.”

Hillary’s Aides Violated the Immunity Agreements…

Posted on September 26, 2016September 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immunity Process Denoted by the Justice Department

9-23.100 – Witness Immunity—Generally

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

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

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

9-23.110 – Statutory Authority to Compel Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9-23.140 – Authority to Initiate Immunity Requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on September 26, 2016September 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

APT 28:

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

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

RUSSIA’S HACKERS HIT BRITAIN

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

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

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

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

Russian hackers targeted government departments and broadcasters including the BBC in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

***

The revelation of the attack on the British election comes amid concerns Russian hackers are attempting to disrupt the US presidential race.Last week another Russian group, DC Leaks, hacked White House servers to obtain what appeared to be Michelle Obama’s passport.

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

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

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