Category Archives: NSA

23 intelligence-military veterans demand Obama release proof of Russian hacking or admit it’s a lie

23 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans have written an extraordinary letter calling on Obama to release the evidence that Russia had hacked the 2016 presidential election in order to elect Donald Trump, or admit that there is no proof.

You don’t and won’t see this letter on the MSM.

The 23 former officials are members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

In their letter, the former federal government officials:

  1. Point out that the Obama administration’s published intelligence report — on Russia’s alleged hacking of the election and transmittal of hacked Democrat emails to WikiLeaks to publish — lacks evidence and is unconvincing.
  2. Assert that, if Russia indeed had transmitted hacked emails to WikiLeaks, the NSA should — but does not — have the incriminating  electronic communications between the Kremlin and Wikileaks.
  3. Assert that the Democrat emails obtained by WikiLeaks were leaked, not hacked, which would explain why there are no electronic traces. By “leaked” is meant that someone(s) handed to WikiLeaks the actual physical hardcopies of the emails. (Note: That is what WikiLeaks has maintained all along. Julian Assange had implied that the source of the leak was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, 27, who was shot and killed in a D.C. street on July 10, 2016. His murder is still unsolved. We want Justice for Seth Rich!)
  4. Convey their dismay that James Clapper, who oversees the entire U.S. intelligence system as Director of National Intelligence, is still in office despite him having lied under oath to Congress and made outright erroneous claims.

Below is their letter. You can read it in PDF format here. I supplied the red color for certain sentences and paragraphs that I believe particularly merit your attention.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

MEMORANDUM FOR: President Barack Obama
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: A Key Issue That Still Needs to be Resolved

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office Friday, a pall hangs over his upcoming presidency amid an unprecedentedly concerted campaign to delegitimize it. Unconfirmed accusations continue to swirl alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized “Russian hacking” that helped put Mr. Trump in the White House.

As President for a few more days, you have the power to demand concrete evidence of a link between the Russians and WikiLeaks, which published the bulk of the information in question. Lacking that evidence, the American people should be told that there is no fire under the smoke and mirrors of recent weeks. We urge you to authorize public release of any tangible evidence that takes us beyond the unsubstantiated, “we-assess” judgments by the intelligence agencies. Otherwise, we – as well as other skeptical Americans – will be left with the corrosive suspicion that the intense campaign of accusations is part of a wider attempt to discredit the Russians and those – like Mr. Trump – who wish to deal constructively with them.

Remember the Maine?

Alleged Russian interference has been labeled “an act of war” and Mr. Trump a “traitor.” But the “intelligence” served up to support those charges does not pass the smell test. Your press conference on Wednesday will give you a chance to respond more persuasively to NBC’s Peter Alexander’s challenge at the last one (on Dec. 16) “to show the proof [and], as they say, put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence. …” You told Alexander you were reluctant to “compromise sources and methods.” We can understand that concern better than most Americans. We would remind you, though, that at critical junctures in the past, your predecessors made judicious decisions to give higher priority to buttressing the credibility of U.S. intelligence-based policy than to protecting sources and methods. With the Kremlin widely accused by politicians and pundits of “an act of war,” this is the kind of textbook case in which you might seriously consider taking special pains to substantiate serious allegations with hard intelligence – if there is any.

During the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, President Kennedy ordered us to show highly classified photos of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and on ships en route, even though this blew sensitive detail regarding the imagery intelligence capabilities of the cameras on our U-2 aircraft.

President Ronald Reagan’s reaction to the Libyan terrorist bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin on April 5, 1986, that killed two and injured 79 other U.S. servicemen is another case in point. We had intercepted a Libyan message that morning: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.” (We should add here that NSA’s dragnet SIGINT capability 30 years later renders it virtually impossible to avoid “leaving a trace behind” once a message is put on the network.)

President Reagan ordered the U.S. Air Force to bomb Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s palace compound to smithereens, killing several civilians. Amid widespread international consternation and demands for proof that Libya was responsible for the Berlin attack, President Reagan ordered us to make public the encrypted Libyan message, thereby sacrificing a collection/decryption capability unknown to the Libyans – until then.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more
damage is done by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them.

Where’s the Beef?

We find the New York Times– and Washington Post-led media Blitz against Trump and Putin truly extraordinary, despite our long experience with intelligence/media related issues. On Jan. 6, the day after your top intelligence officials published what we found to be an embarrassingly shoddy report purporting to prove Russian hacking in support of Trump’s candidacy, the Times banner headline across all six columns on page 1 read: “PUTIN LED SCHEME TO AID TRUMP, REPORT SAYS.

The lead article began: “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.” Eschewing all subtlety, the Times added that the revelations in “this damning report … undermined the legitimacy” of the President-elect, and “made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.”

On page A10, however, Times investigative reporter Scott Shane pointed out: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission.” Shane continued, “Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’ There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.

Shane added that the intelligence report “offers an obvious reason for leaving out the details, declaring that including ‘the precise bases for its assessments’ would ‘reveal sensitive sources and methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.’”

Shane added a quote from former National Security Agency lawyer Susan Hennessey: “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.” Ms. Hennessey served as an attorney in NSA’s Office of General Counsel and is now a Brookings Fellow in National Security Law.

Everyone Hacks

There is a lot of ambiguity – whether calculated or not – about “Russian hacking.” “Everyone knows that everyone hacks,” says everyone: Russia hacks; China hacks; every nation that can hacks. So do individuals of various nationalities. This is not the question.

You said at your press conference on Dec. 16 “the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their [U.S. intelligence agencies’] assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.” “Which hack?” you were asked. “The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta,” you answered.

Earlier during the press conference you alluded to the fact that “the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.” The key question is how the material from “Russian hacking” got to WikiLeaks, because it was WikiLeaks that published the DNC and Podesta emails.

Our VIPS colleague William Binney, who was Technical Director of NSA and created many of the collection systems still in use, assures us that NSA’s “cast-iron” coverage – particularly surrounding Julian Assange and other people associated with WikiLeaks – would almost certainly have yielded a record of any electronic transfer from Russia to WikiLeaks. Binney has used some of the highly classified slides released by Edward Snowden to demonstrate precisely how NSA accomplishes this using trace mechanisms embedded throughout the network. [See: “U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims,” Dec. 12, 2016.]

NSA Must Come Clean

We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks. If NSA can produce such evidence, you may wish to order whatever declassification may be needed and then release the evidence. This would go a long way toward allaying suspicions that no evidence exists. If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.

In all candor, the checkered record of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for trustworthiness makes us much less confident that anyone should take it on faith that he is more “trustworthy than the Russians,” as you suggested on Dec. 16. You will probably recall that Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, about NSA dragnet activities; later apologizing for testimony he admitted had been “clearly erroneous.” In our Memorandum for you on Dec. 11, 2013, we cited chapter and verse as to why Clapper should have been fired for saying things he knew to be “clearly erroneous.”

In that Memorandum, we endorsed the demand by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Clapper be removed. “Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it,” said Sensenbrenner in an interview with The Hill. “The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced.” Actually, we have had trouble understanding why, almost four years after he deliberately misled the Senate, Clapper remains Director of National Intelligence – overseeing the entire intelligence community.

Hacks or Leaks?

Not mentioned until now is our conclusion that leaks are the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures in question – not hacking. Leaks normally leave no electronic trace. William Binney has been emphasizing this for several months and suggesting strongly that the disclosures were from a leaker with physical access to the information – not a hacker with only remote access. This, of course, makes it even harder to pin the blame on President Putin, or anyone else. And we suspect that this explains why NSA demurred when asked to join the CIA and FBI in expressing “high confidence” in this key judgment of the report put out under Clapper’s auspices on Jan. 6, yielding this curious formulation:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.” (Emphasis [bold], and lack of emphasis, in original)

In addition, former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray has said publicly he has first-
hand information on the provenance of the leaks, and has expressed surprise that no one from the New York Times or the Washington Post has tried to get in touch with him. We would be interested in knowing whether anyone from your administration, including the intelligence community, has made any effort to contact Ambassador Murray.

What to Do

President-elect Trump said a few days ago that his team will have a “full report on hacking within 90 days.” Whatever the findings of the Trump team turn out to be, they will no doubt be greeted with due skepticism, since Mr. Trump is in no way a disinterested party.

You, on the other hand, enjoy far more credibility – AND power – for the next few days. And we assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges that cannot withstand close scrutiny. We suggest you order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI and CIA to the White House and ask them to lay all their cards on the table. They need to show you why you should continue to place credence in what, a month ago, you described as “uniform intelligence assessments” about Russian hacking.

At that point, if the intelligence heads have credible evidence, you have the option of ordering it released – even at the risk of damage to sources and methods. For what it may be worth, we will not be shocked if it turns out that they can do no better than the evidence-deprived assessments they have served up in recent weeks. In that case, we would urge you, in all fairness, to let the American people in on the dearth of convincing evidence before you leave office. As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Obama’s Legacy

Mr. President, there is much talk in your final days in office about your legacy. Will part of that legacy be that you stood by while flames of illegitimacy rose willy-nilly around your successor? Or will you use your power to reveal the information – or the fact that there are merely unsupported allegations – that would enable us to deal with them responsibly?

In the immediate wake of the holiday on which we mark the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems appropriate to make reference to his legacy, calling to mind the graphic words in his “Letter From the Birmingham City Jail,” with which he reminds us of our common duty to expose lies and injustice:

“Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”

-End of Memo-

The above memorandum to Barack Obama is signed by the following 23 former U.S. officials who represent the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS):

  1. William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military  Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
  2. Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
  3. Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA
  4. Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  5. Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
  6. Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
  7. Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
  8. Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, ret.
  9. Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
  10. Brady Kiesling, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret. (Associate VIPS)
  11. John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  12. Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
  13. Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
  14. David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
  15. Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
  16. Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
  17. Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
  18. Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
  19. Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
  20. Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  21. Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
  22. Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
  23. Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

See also “Trump’s war with the CIA”.

~Eowyn

Live stream of Trump’s press conference today – Open Thread

In the wake of CNN’s fake news report on Russia having “compromising” information on President-elect Donald Trump — which fell apart in less than 24 hours because of the vigilant Alternative Media — this press conference should be a doozy.

See “CNN Fake News: U.S. intelligence memo says Russia has ‘compromising’ information on Trump

I can’t wait to see Trump chew up the MSM, especially CNN, and spit them out.

Bring popcorn!

Click here for the livestream.

~Eowyn

 

 

It’s war: CIA prepping for cyber attack on Russia

The Obama administration has been itching to go to war with Russia — first, over Ukraine/Crimea; then, over Syria because the Russian military actually attacks ISIS and the jihadist Syrian “rebels” while Obama (and Israel and Saudi Arabia) wants to topple Syria’s Assad government who is friendly toward Christians.

See “U.S. breaks off talks with Russia, as Russians prepare for war with massive civil defense drill

The latest “reason” is the Obama administration’s accusation that Russia hacked the emails of the DNC, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and John Podesta, the chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign campaign — emails that WikiLeaks has been leaking, to the Dems’ embarrassment.

See, for example:

But according to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, it was a murdered DNC staffer who was the source of leaked DNC emails.

Now comes ominous news that the CIA is preparing to launch a cyber attack on Russia.

cyberwarNBC News reports, Oct. 14, 2016:

The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging “clandestine” cyber operation designed to harass and “embarrass” the Kremlin leadership.

The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Vice President Joe Biden told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that “we’re sending a message” to Putin and that “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.” [But] When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied, “Hope not.”

[…] Sean Kanuck, who was until this spring the senior U.S. intelligence official responsible for analyzing Russian cyber capabilities, said not mounting a response would carry a cost.

“If you publicly accuse someone,” he said, “and don’t follow it up with a responsive action, that may weaken the credible threat of your response capability.”

President Obama will ultimately have to decide whether he will authorize a CIA operation. Officials told NBC News that for now there are divisions at the top of the administration about whether to proceed.

[…] Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell expressed skepticism that the U.S. would go so far as to attack Russian networks.

“Physical attacks on networks is not something the U.S. wants to do because we don’t want to set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us,” he said. “My own view is that our response shouldn’t be covert — it should overt, for everybody to see.” [Good luck with that, Morrell, because this news of CIA prepping cyber war is out. -Eowyn]

The Obama administration is debating just that question, officials say — whether to respond to Russia via cyber means, or with traditional measures such as sanctions.

The CIA’s cyber operation is being prepared by a team within the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence, documents indicate. According to officials, the team has a staff of hundreds and a budget in the hundreds of millions, they say. […]

While the National Security Agency is the center for American digital spying, the CIA is the lead agency for covert action and has its own cyber capabilities. […] According to documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the CIA requested $685.4 million for computer network operations in 2013, compared to $1 billion by the NSA.

Retired Gen. Mike Hayden, who ran the CIA after leading the NSA, wrote this year: “We even had our own cyber force, the Information Operations Center (IOC), that former CIA director George Tenet launched and which had grown steadily under the next spy chief, Porter Goss, and me. The CIA didn’t try to replicate or try to compete with NSA… the IOC was a lot like Marine Corps aviation while NSA was an awful lot like America’s Air Force.”

Does Obama seriously think Russia won’t counterattack if the U.S. launches a cyber attack? And are we prepared to withstand cyber war with Moscow (and perhaps China, too), given head of Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency Gen. Keith Alexander’s warning in February 2014 that the U.S. military is not prepared for cyber war?

War with Russia will also be Obama’s perfect excuse to suspend the November election.

~Eowyn

Facebook eavesdrops on your phone conversations & even tracks non-FB users

Big Brother is watchingNot only is the federal government’s National Security Agency (NSA) tracking our emails, phone calls, snail mail, and money transactions, now comes news that Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook, a non-government privately-owned business, is tracking you online and also listening to your cell phone!

WLFA ABC10 reports that USF Professor Kelli Burns warns, “I don’t think that people realize how much Facebook is tracking every move we’re making online. Anything that you’re doing on your phone, Facebook is watching.”

It all starts with enabling the microphone feature in your cell phone’s settings. Once you do, choose your words carefully because Facebook will be listening.

For that matter, Facebook actually admits all this in an online statement:

We use your microphone to identify the things you’re listening to or watching, based on the music and TV matches we’re able to identify.”

Facebook’s eavesdropping ostensibly is to match ads to the user. Facebook listens for certain buzz words in phone conversations, then places certain ads in your Facebook feed which match your interests front.

WLFA ABC10 confirmed this with a test by having Professor Burns enable the microphone feature on her cell phone, then talk aloud, phone in hand: “I’m really interested in going on an African safari. I think it’d be wonderful to ride in one of those jeeps.”

Less than 60 seconds later, the first post on her Facebook feed was a safari story that seemed to pop up out of nowhere. The story even mentioned a jeep. Then a car ad also appeared on her page.

USF graduate student Danielle Quichocho is not surprised by Facebook’s eavesdropping and is planning her thesis around this very topic. She said, “It’s all about the bottom line, and if this is a way to fatten that bottom line, they’re gonna do it. If you agree to the terms and conditions, then you know what to expect. The internet is forever! You leave a footprint there. They’re going to find it. That’s just how it is.”

It gets worse.

Zach Epstein reports for Fox News that even people who don’t have a Facebook account will now be tracked.

On May 26, 2016, Facebook announced that it is changing the way its advertising works on third-party websites and apps called Audience Network.

Until May 26, Facebook’s off-site ads were only shown to Facebook users. Now, that will no longer be the case.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Facebook’s off-site ads will now be shown to people who are not registered Facebook users. That means webgoers without Facebook accounts will now be tracked by Facebook so that the ads they’re served will be “better targeted to their tastes.” Facebook can track a user across most or even all of the web pages he or she visits. That information is then stored and analyzed by Facebook so that advertisements served by Facebook’s Audience Network partners are more likely to be relevant to these users.

Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg

It turns out this isn’t really news. More than a year ago, our DCG already sounded the alarm that Facebook is “illegally” tracking all visitors to its site, even if they don’t have FB accounts. Facebook is simply admitting what it’s been doing all along.

FoxNews says it’s easy to thwart Facebook’s ad tracking. Find out how right here.

See also:

H/t Big Lug

~Eowyn

Hillary Clinton asked for a BlackBerry in 2009, but the NSA said no

Hillary Clinton what difference does it make

Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency, according to the Associated Press.

The messages made public Wednesday were obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal advocacy group that has filed numerous lawsuits seeking the release of federal documents related to Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s top diplomat.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has come under intense scrutiny for her decision to use a private email server located in the basement of her New York home to route messages, including some containing sensitive information. Security experts have raised concern the arrangement could have left the messages vulnerable to attack by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies.

Clinton’s desire for a secure “Blackberry-like” device, like that provided to President Barack Obama, is recounted in a series of February 2009 exchanges between high-level officials at the State Department and NSA. Clinton was sworn in as secretary the prior month, and had become “hooked” on reading and answering emails on a Blackberry she used during the 2008 presidential race.

“We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘Blackberry-like’ communications,” wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure. “The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.” Reid wrote that each time they asked NSA what solution they had worked up to provide a mobile device to Obama, “we were politely told to shut up and color.”

Cheryl Mills behind her "cute" boss.

Cheryl Mills behind her “cute” boss.

Resolving the issue was given such priority as to result in a face-to-face meeting between Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, seven senior State Department staffers with five NSA security experts. According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton’s reliance on her Blackberry for email and keeping track of her calendar. Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary.

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information, such as the block of offices used by senior State Department officials, known by the nickname “Mahogany Row” for the quality of their paneling. Mills said that was inconvenient, because they had to leave their offices and retrieve their phones to check messages.

Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use Blackberries in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns.

The department’s designated NSA liaison, whose name was redacted from the documents, expressed concerns about security vulnerabilities inherent with using Blackberry devices for secure communications or in secure areas. However, the specific reasons Clinton’s requests were rebuffed are being kept secret by the State Department.

The following month, in March 2009, Clinton began using private email accounts accessed through her Blackberry to exchange messages with her top aides. The State Department has thus far released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton’s work-related emails, a small percentage of which have been withheld because they contain information considered sensitive to national security.

In recent months, Clinton has said her home-based email setup was a mistake, but that she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time.

The FBI is investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton’s email server was mishandled. The State Department has acknowledged that some emails included classified information, including at the top-secret level. The inspectors general at the State Department and for U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken.

There are currently at least 38 lawsuits, including on filed by The Associated Press, seeking records related to Clinton’s service as Secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. On Tuesday, Judicial Watch filed a discovery motion in one of those cases seeking to question eight former State Department staffers under oath, including Mills and Reid. The judge overseeing the case indicated last month he was strongly considering allowing lawyers from the group to question Clinton’s former aides.

“These documents show that Hillary Clinton knew her Blackberry wasn’t secure,” Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said Wednesday. “The FBI and prosecutors ought to be very interested in these new materials.”

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Sandy Hook dad Lenny Pozner’s website redirects to Obama regime’s NSA

Lenny & Veronique Pozner

Leonard “Lenny” Pozner, 47, claims to be the biological father of Noah Pozner, one of the first-graders allegedly shot dead by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 14, 2012.

Noah is a remarkable boy because 2 years after he was killed in Newtown, he was once again killed thousands of miles away across the world in Peshawar, Pakistan, this time in the Army Public School shooting on December 16, 2014. (See “Dead again: Sandy Hook child victim Noah Pozner also killed in Pakistan Taliban shooting!”)

Curiously, Lenny did not attend his slain son’s funeral. Instead, after the Jewish shiva mourning period, Lenny skipped Noah’s funeral and instead “went to be with family in Florida.” (Source: Forward)

Lenny is unique among the parents and families of Sandy Hook victims in the aggressive way he’s gone after people who are skeptical of the official account of the Sandy Hook shooting. In addition to decrying the skeptics in a newspaper op/ed, Lenny is using a company called HONR Network which he’d set up expressly for the purpose, to remove any image of Noah from blogs and YouTube on the grounds of copyright violation, although the Facebook page Lenny had created to commemorate his son has scores of Noah’s images, which means those images are in the public domain.

Dutchsince is one of the bloggers hounded by Lenny. Here’s Dutchsince’s account of what happened:

Yesterday, a Sandy Hook ($andy Crook) family member came to a video I made and filed a false copyright claim against it because I’m showing a google search containing something they don’t like.

Video they flagged: (dead link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwi3KmF0luc

The man filing the false claims of copyright goes by many names [including Lenny P. Osner], the name associated with the COMPANY (which filed the claim against me) is Leonard Pozner (age 47 from Newtown CT). HONR Network is his company which specializes in getting content removed from the internet which they don’t approve of.

…I tried to file a dispute against his false claim, and youtube would NOT allow a dispute to be filed.  First time I’ve seen this in over 4 years of making videos….

Filing a claim of copyright theft (by the Sandy Hook family) is a public accusation of a crime being committed.

The fact that I cannot dispute this means that even though I committed no crime, I have been deemed guilty by the person accusing me of the crime.  I now have to get a lawyer and sue to have this accusation of a crime removed.

If I agree, or let this go, it stands as a copyright crime / violation for life.  I have to counter sue (in actual court not on youtube) to have my name cleared….

People are LETTING this Sandy Hook family walk all over our rights, all because they supposedly lost someone?  Do we let victims of crimes determine our free speech rights?  Crime victims can be unreasonable, reactionary, and sometimes downright crazy in their behavior.

Lenny also went after blogger Johnny Cirucci. Lenny’s harassment and intimidation of blogger and college student Timothy Hunter is especially reprehensible. Hunter’s youtube and email were blocked (see his tweet below); he no longer blogs; and Hunter is now so spooked, he won’t even communicate with me although he and I had collaborated on an important post, “Sandy Hook deception: Associated Press stories & photos predate the massacre.”

Timothy Hunter tweet

Lenny also went after this blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM).

He prevailed on WordPress, FOTM‘s server, to take down Noah’s pictures, without even notifying me, the owner, first. WordPress also repeatedly threatened to shut down FOTM for violating Lenny’s copy right claims, despite FOTM’s Fair Use disclaimer as a not-for-profit site. WordPress also removed from FOTM the address and phone number of Lenny’s HONR Network company, although:

  • HONR’s address is public information that anyone can find by “googling” HONR Network.
  • HONR Network has its address on its Contact page.

Notwithstanding his aggressive pursuit against bloggers on alleged copyright infringement, Lenny is strangely incurious about why an image of his son was included on a wall-poster commemorating the victims of the Peshawar Army School shooting. (See “BBC admits but will not investigate why pic of Sandy Hook’s Noah Pozner is among Peshawar massacre victims”)

Back to Lenny Pozner’s company, HONR Network. This what Dutchsince found (all the information below is public record):

  • HONR Network was a “fictitious name” in Florida.
  • Its owner is Leonard Pozner.
  • HONR Network had no registered agent.
  • Filing Date: Nov. 3, 2014.
  • Filing Number: G14000111151
  • The address for the so-called business, HONR Network, was a P.O. Box in Boca Raton, FL 33432.

Although HONR Network is listed as a business, it conducts no buying or selling, nor does it have a store front. Its address is a P.O. Box address, which is why Dutchsince calls it a “‘fictional’ entity created to harass others online under the GUISE of corporate law.”

honr-network-po-box

Some have wondered how Lenny has the resources to set up HONR Network and the time to go after bloggers and YouTubers. There are speculations that HONR Network may be a front for a government operation.

Wonder and speculate no more, for lo and behold, if you go to http://www.honr.com or type HONR.COM into your browser, and hit “enter”, you’ll be directed to a federal government website — that of the National Security Agency (NSA)!

I did that yesterday and have the following screenshots to prove I did.

The first screenshot was taken when I typed the URL http://www. honr.com, then hit “Enter”. Note that the time and date are, respectively, 12:41 PM and 1/6/2015 (see lower right corner of screenshot below, inside the red box I painted). Note that the screenshot shows the Honr URL, but the page that came up is NSA’s website.

↓ Click image to enlarge ↓

Lenny Pozner website1

I took the second screenshot (below) one second later, which shows the URL now says http://www.nsa.gov.

↓ Click image to enlarge ↓

Lenny Pozner website2

See also:

UPDATE:

Minutes after I’d published this post, a friend emailed me that the HONR link no longer redirects to the NSA. Good thing I took the screenshots!

TPTB likes to play mind-games with the little people. See:

~Éowyn