Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: ‘Foreign Actors’ Got Ahold of Some of Hillary’s Emails, Including One Classified

Report: ‘Foreign Actors’ Got Ahold of Some of Hillary’s Emails, Including One Classified

“The email says that ‘we know foreign actors obtained access’ to some Clinton emails, including at least one ‘secret’ message ‘via compromises of the private email accounts’ of Clinton staffers.”

Fox News reported a memo from the House Judiciary and Oversight committees revealed that “foreign actors” accessed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails when she served as secretary of state, including one classified.

Remember, she used a private server during her tenure.

From Fox News (emphasis mine):

The memo does not say who the foreign actors are, or what material was obtained, but it notes that secret information is defined as information that, if disclosed, could “reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.”

The committees say that no one appears to have been held accountable either criminally or administratively.

Relatedly, Fox News has obtained a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok — who also is criticized in the House memo for his anti-Trump texts with colleague Lisa Page. The email says that “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers.

Why is that date significant?

Because former FBI Director James Comey released his statement on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s email in July 2016 and made no mention of that significant detail. He said, “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.”

Fox News reported this before the IG dropped his report, which concluded that Comey was “insubordinate,” but did not find evidence that “political bias” affected the investigation.

Strzok’s email shows that the agents discovered that foreign actors accessed at least one classified email. I’m sorry, but am I the only one who thinks these people accessing one classified email is one too many?

Well, Strzok wrote that the FBI had “no evidence classified information was ever shared with an unauthorized party.” In other words, Hillary and her staffers didn’t knowingly share this classified information with others like “a member of the media, an agent of a foreign power, a lover, etc.” But does it matter if it happened with or without intention?  Probably not:

In the House memo, lawmakers questioned whether the DOJ and FBI properly analyzed and interpreted the law surrounding mishandling of classified information.

“Officials from both agencies have created a perception they misinterpreted the Espionage Act by stating Secretary Clinton lacked the requisite ‘intent’ for charges to be filed,” the memo says, before pointing to statements by Comey that indicated a belief that intent was required — which the memo says ignored “meaningful aspects” of the law.

Strzok stressed that “it’s important to note that had these emails been sent on a state.gov system rather than a private one, it’s not clear that the FBI would currently have an open investigation.”

I would hope the FBI would open an investigation if anyone hacked and accessed any classified information on any server.

Last little bit. Strzok concluded that the officials need to discuss if Hillary’s “conduct rises to the legal definition of gross negligence.” We learned last December that it was Strzok that softened Comey’s description of Hillary’s handling of classified information. He changed it from “gross negligence” to “extremely careless.” From CNN:

The shift from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” which may appear pedestrian at first glance, reflected a decision by the FBI that could have had potentially significant legal implications, as the federal law governing the mishandling of classified material establishes criminal penalties for “gross negligence.”

This is the definition of gross negligence:

A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.

But no political bias, right Inspector General Michael Horowitz? Okay, bro.

Peter Strzok email about Clinton emails by Fox News on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 14, 2018 at 5:44 pm

Clinton Gifted Them…….

FIFT

“One classified message”
Not likely. Based on the type of software they used, and there are simple connection to the Internet, I’m reasonably confident that the entirety of the correspondence on that machine was downloaded to every competent foreign intelligence agency.

Connivin Caniff | June 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm

Goodbye to even pretending that there is equal treatment under law. Hillary, DOJ and FBI criminals get a pass, while the book is thrown at the people they investigate so that the government can get an unfair plea. Judges make up law to advance their hard left causes. The Congress will do nothing, as they are in on it. This system is rotten and it cannot last. It will devolve into Venezuela.

    The lessons couldn’t be more stark. Work for Trump and you’ll be culled from the herd – and fell upon by the many-headed hydra.

    How many young people will join the 2020 Trump campaign and risk personal ruin?

Whitewash.

Do we know which foreign actors? A-List or not? Brigitte Bardot? Sophia Loren? Hugh Grant?

Mary Chastain: Remember, she used a private server during her tenure.

That doesn’t appear to be relevant as the purported hack was not of her account.

    gmac124 in reply to Zachriel. | June 14, 2018 at 7:02 pm

    Actually it is completely relevant when those private e-mail accounts are on Hillary’s private server.

      “we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.”

        DaveGinOly in reply to Zachriel. | June 14, 2018 at 10:12 pm

        Nor did they actually perform a forensic examination of her private server. (The one that was Bit-Bleached when its contents were under subpoena.) There may be no direct evidence of “political bias” in the conduct of the investigation, but little else explains that gaping chasm between the conduct of the investigation of the Hillary server scandal (were we know there was wrong-doing) and the investigation of “Russian collusion,” which is based on unsupported, bought and paid-for DNC opposition research.

        how many exchange servers to you (like I do) manage?
        if more than one you would (unless completely useless) know server can be authoritative for more than one domain name if needed.
        her server was exchange 2010. in single server config hub transport role handled it on 2010.

          dmacleo: if more than one you would (unless completely useless) know server can be authoritative for more than one domain name if needed.

          Sure, you can make up whatever facts you want. For instance, maybe Clinton was using one of your servers.

          Meanwhile, let us know when you have actual evidence.

I guess yet another word has been run over and left to die on the roadside. Today, that word is “political”, which is being read as if it can only mean partisanship. The FBI views itself as non-political, and so does the Director. Ergo, the Director acting out of self-interest, or to put the well-being of the agency above that of the American people…

…isn’t political in any way, because it is not partisan.

I’ll leave a flower on the side of the road.

I’ve had no doubt that “foreign actors” had access to her e-mails. In fact, I’ve had no doubt that quite a few of those 30,000 deleted messages were TO and FROM some of those foreign actors, and thousands more directly related to them and their relationship with Hillary, financial or otherwise.

The Strzok email is important because of the timing.

Servergate had been going on for quite some time. It was languishing, until it became a campaign issue in early 2016. The FBI made a big show of investigating it while planning, if the April drafts of Comey’s justification for exonerating HRC are any indication, to find no violation of law. But, in June two BIG things happened. Strzok made it clear that some classified material had been intercepted from either HRC’s email or that of a close staffer and WJC met with Lynch in the tarmac in Phoenix. This put everyone in a pickle. If Lynch, or anyone on the prosecution side of the DOJ exonerated HRC, after those two incidents, it would look like a political action taken by the Obama administration, likely with the knowledge of the President. So, either Comey was tapped for the job or he volunteered to protect the upper echelons of the Obama administration. It was assumed that 1) HRC would win the election and Comey’s actions would become moot or 2) if Trump won, Comey would present himself as a paragon of impartial federal law enforcement and would skate. He even publicly admitted, under oath, that he made the announcement to spare the USAG embarrassment. The second announcement about the Anthony Weiner laptop was made as pure CYA.

This was all a political cover-up. It was designed to protect HRC, but to a greater extent President Obama and the upper echelons of his administration. And, now Comey is being Oswalded. He is being portrayed as a rogue member of the administration and none of his superiors knew of his pending actions. The one thing that they have never attempted to explain is why, if Comey was a rogue and acted unilaterally, they did not simply present the case to a grand jury and gain a no true bill as cover. Oh, that’s right, they couldn’t; after Comet laid out a prima facia case against HRC. Comey is being actively set up to be the fall guy and the firewall for the Obama administration.

Hillary clinton truly belongs at the end of a rope.

Two things should be mentioned:
1. The fact that secret information was compromised is not relevant. Merely exposing classified information to potential compromise is a crime. Its actual compromise doesn’t make it worse, but it does provide a measure of how willing the Deep State is to look the other way to protect one its their own.
2. Under the law, “intent” is not necessary, merely “gross negligence.” Negligence occurs when someone fails to do that which aught to have been done, either intentionally (purposeful neglect) or unintentionally (e.g. incompetence). Hillary’s negligence was purposeful – her purpose was the evasion of public record and disclosure laws.

    Again, Hillary clinton truly belongs at the end of a rope.

    DaveGinOly: Merely exposing classified information to potential compromise is a crime.

    Even that is not required. Merely removing information relating to the national defence “from its proper place of custody” is a violation.

    DaveGinOly: Under the law, “intent” is not necessary, merely “gross negligence.”

    True. However, the person has to know the information was relating to the national defence, which was not shown in the Clinton investigation.

      Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 15, 2018 at 4:05 pm

      Actually it was demonstrated that she knew she was dealing with NDI. These people can say all the stupid things they want about how Hillary Clinton didn’t show intent, or she wasn’t aware that she was handling NDI. Anyone other than Hillary Clinton would have been prosecuted.

      By denying the glaringly obvious they are simply demonstrating that the swamp dwellers protect each other. If they came across Hillary Clinton standing over one of Bill Clinton’s mistresses dead bodies, smoking gun still in hand, and residue testing proved she had fired the gun, and the bullet came from the gun, they’d still deny she had committed a crime because they’re partisan hacks.

      And so would you Zachriel. That’s the kind of thing you have to pretend to believe in order to pretend you don’t understand that according to Comey, and this IG report, Hillary Clinton met all the elements of the crime detailed in 18 U.S. Code § 793(d). Not para (f) which only requires gross negligence, but para (d) which requires willful intent.

      The report is damning. It would send anyone not named Clinton to prison for decades if not for life.

        Arminius: Actually it was demonstrated that she knew she was dealing with NDI.

        How was that demonstrated?

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2018 at 3:36 pm

          It was demonstrated by both the US Intelligence Community IG report and Hillary Clinton’s signed NDA.

          https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/Classified%20docs%2C%2008-11-15%2C%20ICIG%20CN%20-%20Update%20on%20Classified%20Materials%20on%20Personal%20thumb%20drive.%20Clinton%20server.pdf

          http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

          I don’t even want to mention the classification level and the specific compartment that was on Clinton’s server. But the NDA shows she was read in and acknowledged she was briefed on that specific compartment (among others).

          The combination of the two means she does not have the option of playing dumb and claiming she didn’t know she was dealing with NDI. You may not know this, but I know it, and any judge that could take this case (one with a clearance and experience in national security cases) knows it.

          She could argue through her lawyers that the government has to prove she knew that specific information was NDI. No dice. She signed a binding contract with the USG acknowledging she had been briefed. After that you can not ever again claim you didn’t know.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2018 at 4:02 pm

          Actually I was typing too quickly. The judge doesn’t need a security clearance to see classified documents relevant to his or her case. Neither does the jury if it’s a jury trial.

          But everyone else involved including the court clerk, court reporter, and bailiffs would need to be cleared.

          How do I know you can’t play dumb after you acknowledge you’ve been read into a specific compartment and have been briefed on it? Because I am aware of people who have tried it and it fails every time. That doesn’t even work for GENSER Secret. This is different; it’s TS//SCI. The information in that compartment is unmistakable.

          Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was designated by position as an originating classification authority. She’s supposed to recognize classified information when not marked, and know how to properly classify it. She can delegate that authority, and should, but that doesn’t relieve her of her responsibility to recognize classified material. So she has even less excuse than lower level people who have tried the “I didn’t know I was looking at TS//SCI information, and oh by the way I was read in and briefed on what information is contained in that specific compartment, but I’m unbelievably stupid and incompetent so I can’t be held accountable for not fulfilling my responsibilities as agreed” defense.

          I never said that the DoJ IG report established that she knew she was dealing with NDI. That had already been established. But the FBI investigators and FBI/DoJ attorneys interviewed as witnesses continue to offer the same idiotic excuses for letting Clinton off the hook. They had to keep this out of a court room because they know perfectly a judge simply wouldn’t permit those idiotic excuses.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2018 at 4:13 pm

          Apparently you’re not aware of the fact that the entire point of having people sign NDAs which include briefing acknowledgements is to shut the door on precisely the defense you propose. Because otherwise everybody would try it. Some people are in fact stupid enough to try it. The NDA shuts down that attempted defense right quick. As long as the government has paper trail it’s game, set, match.

          In Hillary Clinton’s case they have the paper trail.

          Arminius: She signed a binding contract with the USG acknowledging she had been briefed.

          Signing an NDA does not mean she would know whether a particular email was or was not relating to national defence. The act of signing an NDA doesn’t provide such proof.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2018 at 5:40 pm

          Yes as a legal matter it does. What part of “the entire point of having people sign NDAs which include briefing acknowledgements is to shut the door on precisely the defense you propose” are you refusing to let penetrate your skull? Since EVERYBODY accused of doing what Clinton did would love to play the “all the training in the world can’t prepare me to fulfill my responsibilities r.e. classified material because I’m too stupid to know what I was looking at” game the government insisted that they sign these NDAs, which are legally sufficient to overcome that attempted defense.

          Clearly out of hack partisanship you have to continue to deny reality and claim that THIS TIME Clinton could use a defense that courts have declared invalid every time it’s been tried. I understand that. I’ve dealt with partisan hackery all my life. All the rest of us can do now, Zachriel, is point and laugh.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2018 at 5:45 pm

          You can continue to argue by baseless assertion all you want. The signed NDA means the government doesn’t have to play your silly game. You can wish it was different all you want, but judges disallow it.

          When I was in the Navy NCIS would simply come to me and ask for copies of the NDA, any training records, and copies out of my training log (back then we kept physical log books) and they would say thank you.

          And that provides the prosecutor with all the ammo necessary to overcome this defense that for some inane reason think makes sense. It’s been tried before.

          Arminius in reply to Zachriel. | June 16, 2018 at 7:12 pm

          Your defense could be used by someone who doesn’t have a clearance. In that case the government’s burden of proof would be high.

          NDI is simply information “related to the national defense of the United States” and there’s a legal definition for that. “Information closely held by the United States government and of a type which, if disclosed, would harm the United States.”

          So Bradly/Chelsea Manning could not use this defense and indeed didn’t even try. But if Julian Assange, who was not authorized to receive Manning’s information but published it, were ever charged with violating the Espionage Act he could use your defense. It’s simply not available to anyone with a clearance.

          And you’re ignoring another huge elephant in the room. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dealt almost exclusively with foreign-sourced information. That also meets the definition of “information related to the national defense of the United States” in that it is “information closely held by the United States government and of a type which, if disclosed, would harm the United States.” It’s closely held by the United States because if it were disclosed it would harm our alliances.

          Foreign-sourced information is “presumed classified.” “Presumed classified” information is defined by executive order, and indeed Obama had defined the information that she largely dealt with as such. It’s classified at a lower level but all the prosecution would have to prove is that she had received State Department training. Which she had. And we have a second NDA to prove it.

          http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

          In which Clinton acknowledges that the briefing officer had answered all her questions and made available Executive orders and relevant statutes.

          Saying “I didn’t know” is again simply not an excuse available to anyone with a security clearance. As Secretary of State she would never be allowed to get away with that defense that for some reason you think is clever. Really? She can argue that she didn’t know the bulk of the information she dealt with was “presumed classified” after agreeing the briefing officer had provided her with all the relevant EOs and statutes?

          It’s called a prima facie case, Zachriel. Look it up. Hillary Clinton created the case against her and served it up on silver platter for even a mediocre prosecutor.

          Now, you can continue to reject reality and invent your own if you want to. But I believe anyone following this realizes just how ridiculous your invented objections really are.

          Arminius: What part of “the entire point of having people sign NDAs which include briefing acknowledgements is to shut the door on precisely the defense you propose”

          That is not correct. Signing an NDA, or even taking training, does not guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt that someone will recognize a particular bit of information should be classified. That determination would depend on the specifics involved.

          Arminius: You can continue to argue by baseless assertion all you want.

          The FBI made the determination there was no prosecutable crime, and the inspector general found the determination was reasonable. Multiple independent legal experts also made the same determination based on case law.

          Arminius: The signed NDA means the government doesn’t have to play your silly game.

          A signed NDA does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that particular information was relating to the national defence or that the person knew at the time that the particular information was relating to the national defence.

          Arminius: So Bradly/Chelsea Manning could not use this defense and indeed didn’t even try.

          No, because it could be proven that she knew at the time that the information was relating to the national defence.

          Arminius: Foreign-sourced information is “presumed classified.”

          Information provided in confidence by a foreign government is presumed classified.

          Arminius: She can argue that she didn’t know the bulk of the information she dealt with was “presumed classified”

          That vast majority of the emails were not classified, even after the fact. Clinton extensively used the secure State system for classified information.

Some?? Does anyone besides hillery know what was in the 30,000 emails she refused to turn over and why was that not obstruction of justice???

    Arminius in reply to dunce1239. | June 16, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-recovered-clintons-deleted-emails-2015-9

    “The FBI has been able to recover deleted emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal server, a source close to the investigation told Bloomberg.

    And intriguingly, agents sifting through the emails Clinton said were “personal” in nature have reportedly handed some over to investigators — indicating that they are relevant in at least some way to the FBI’s ongoing investigation…”

    Eventually the FBI recovered 17,000 deleted emails, an unknown portion of which were in fact work related.

    Yes, this is obstruction of justice. Just as it was obstruction of justice for the tech at Platte Rive Networks to delete emails as instructed even though he was aware of the preservation order. How did he get away with that? The DoJ/FBI gave him immunity.

    This is also a clear violation of the Federal Records Act.

    I explain how she got away with it here.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/06/doj-inspector-general-report-on-hillary-email-investigation-political-bias-did-not-directly-affected-the-specific-investigative-decisions/#comment-855544

    The bottom line is that the FBI refused to do what they normally do in one of these investigations. That is, follow leads when they discover possible additional crimes. As I note, people normally try to obstruct justice when they have illegally received, sent, or stored classified information. And this is a clear violation of the FRA. If it were you or I they would have pursued those leads.

    But the FBI and DoJ did what they would never do for anyone not named Clinton. When dealing with her personally, and her closest aids, they did everything by consent. So they agreed with their attorneys to look only for evidence of A) classified material and B) intrusion. They agreed not to pursue and other leads.

    The FBI artificially limited this investigation to avoid finding evidence of other crimes. The investigation was a whitewash.

    Check out this footnote from Ch. V B. Limits of Consent Agreements.

    “74 For example, one analyst told us that within the Blackberry back-ups on the Cooper laptop, the FBI team found an email from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Clinton on January 23, 2009, in which Powell warned Clinton that if it became ‘public’ that she used a Blackberry to ‘do business,’ her emails could become ‘official record[s] and subject to the law.’ In the email, Powell further warned Clinton, ‘Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.’”

    That’s Colin Powell informing Clinton that using private devices “could” make make her emails subject to the FRA. Considering the state of the law during Hillary Clinton’s tenure make that “will.”

    And he’s telling her how he evaded the law! She could not have done what he did and evaded he legal requirements. Per 36 CFR 1222.12 – Defining Federal records and 36 CFR 1236.22 – What are the additional requirements for managing electronic mail records? and our knowledge of the nature of the emails that have been released we know for a fact that thousands of these documents are in fact federal records.

    And the FBI refused to pursue it. Which is why they did everything by consent instead of process. They effectively and willingly turned the scope of the investigation over to the attorneys working for Clinton and her team.

    So they could have the excuse that they had to abide by the consent agreements. This is an old government trick. It’s roughly equivalent to the EPA negotiating with and in fact subsidizing through grant money to environmental groups to sue them. Then they can get the court order that gives the EPA the regulatory power they wanted all along, but gives them the excuse that they have no choice but to abide by the court order.

    The government didn’t want to find any felonies in the course of the Clinton investigation so they allowed the private attorneys representing the potential targets to dictate the limits of the investigation so they couldn’t look for any evidence.

So, Sec. Clinton tweets out, “But my emails” and the media fawns about the “shade” she threw at Dir Comey or how her tweet was stinging. But how are Sec. Clinotn’s words “stinging”? She was wrong and apparantly so was he. This is a bit like telling the police officer, “but they’re speeding too”! Seems there’s an ethics problem in DC and far to many people are lax regarding security.

Look, honesty should tell us that after it was shown Pres. Obama exchanged email with Sec. Clinton through the Clinton.com server that the DOJ would let this pass. It would’ve opened up a whole can of worms to show the POTUS was aware and had engaged in the same behavior. Truth is we know, for fact, Sec. Jackson (EPA), Sec. Sebulious (HHS), AG Holder and Pres. Obama ALL used off the books email accounts for official government business. They were all wrong. Sec. Clinton just went 200 steps further and ONLY used an off the books, unsecured, privately owned email server for her duties as Sec. of State.

The server, we now know, contained human and signal classified intelligence and at least one foreign entity allegedly gained access through the emails of Sydney Blumenthal. But the DOJ was never gonna address it because it would’ve exposed EVERYONE as Sec. Clinton would’ve come out and said, like she just did with her “tweet”, “what about (insert name)”. The fact that five people were granted immunity during the course of the investigation proves there was only a desire to make this go away and I’m sure part of that was because folks like Comey, knew he was engaged in similar behavior.

It was wrong, all of it. The fact that thousands of emails ended up on the computer of a convicted sex offender (Anthony Weiner) and in the custody of a company (Platte River Solutions) that had no government contract and had not a single staff with a security clearance only shows how lax the ethics were. People talk about conspiracy theories and yet we’ve no clue how much information from our highest levels is being gathered on the Web by private emails. Imagine what those foreign actors who used Sydney Blumenthal’s email as a back door might have gained. We, our government, was never going to address this because they were all doing the same.

Justice died and to argue otherwise means, IMO, that the actions of Sec. Clinton and the rest of the cast of characters was “all good”. It wasn’t, we know that but our DOJ and Congress to be honest, looked the other way because well, “everybody” was doing it.

    Arminius in reply to WillS68. | June 16, 2018 at 4:23 pm

    “So, Sec. Clinton tweets out, “But my emails” and the media fawns about the “shade” she threw at Dir Comey or how her tweet was stinging. But how are Sec. Clinotn’s words “stinging”? She was wrong and apparantly so was he…”

    I know, Will, it’s insane. The IG included that detail in his report as an example of wrongdoing on Comey’s part. And Clinton and the sycophantic media think it’s somehow vindicates her?!?!

Why aren’t the perpetrators of the violations of law being charged and it’s beyond time to Lock the Harpy Hag Up.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend