Posted on 04/08/2019 3:18:14 PM PDT by jazusamo
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it uncovered 422 pages of FBI documents showing evidence of “cover-up” discussions related to the Clinton email system within Platte River Networks, one of the vendors who managed the Clinton email system. The documents also show Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Charles McCullough forwarding “concerns” about classified information in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The new documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also contain Clinton’s 2009 classified information Non-Disclosure Agreement bearing her signature.
An October 2016 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) forced the release of the new FBI documents. Judicial Watch lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking:
FBI notes of an interview with an unidentified Platte River Networks official in February 2016 (almost a year after the Clinton email network was first revealed) show that Platte River “gave someone access to live HRC archive mailbox at some point.” The same notes show that an email from December 11, 2014, exists that reads “Hillary cover up operation work ticket archive cleanup.” The interviewee said that the “cover up operation” email “probably related to change to 60 day [sic] email retention policy/backup.” The subject indicated that he didn’t “recall the prior policy.” The notes also indicated, “[Redacted] advised [redacted] not to answer questions related to conv [conversation] w/DK [David Kendall] document 49 – based on 5th amendment.”
The subject said that “everyone @ PRN has access to client portal.”
A December 11, 2014, Platte River Networks email between redacted parties says: “Its [sic] all part of the Hillary coverup operation <smile> I’ll have to tell you about it at the party”
An August 2015 email from Platte River Networks says: “So does this mean we don’t have offsite backups currently? That could be a problem if someone hacks this thing and jacks it up. We will have to be able to produce a copy of it somehow, or we’re in some deep shit. Also, what ever [sic] came from the guys at Datto about the old backups? Do they have anyway [sic] of getting those back after we were told to cut it to 30 days?”
In March 2015, Platte River Networks specifically discusses security of the email server.
[Redacted] is going to send over a list of recommendations for us to apply for additional security against hackers. He did say we should probably remove all Clinton files, folders, info off our servers etc. on an independent drive.
Handwritten notes that appear to be from Platte River Networks in February 2016 mention questions concerning the Clinton email system and state of back-ups
The documents show Platte River Networks’ use of BleachBit on the Clinton server. The BleachBit program was downloaded from a vendor called SourceForge at 11:42am on March 31, 2015, according to a computer event log, and over the next half hour, was used to delete the files on Hillary’s server.
The documents also contain emails and handwritten notes written in June and July 2015 from the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General discussing “ concerns ” over classified information. A redacted sender writes to State Department Official Margaret “Peggy” Grafeld that “inadvertent release of State Department’s equities when this collection is released in its entirety — the potential damage to the foreign relations of the United States could be significant. ICIG McCullough forwards the concern, saying: “Need you plugged in on this.”
From: [Redacted]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 2:46 PM
To: Grafeld, Margaret P [Peggy]
Subject: Concerns about the HRC Review …
While working with this inspector, I have personally reviewed hundreds of documents in the HRC collection. I can now say, without reservation, that there are literally hundreds of classified emails in this collection; maybe more. For example, there are comments by Department staff in emails relating to the Wikileaks unauthorized disclosures; many of the emails relating to this actually confirm the information in the disclosures. This material is the subject of FOIA litigation, and the emails will now have to be found, reviewed and upgraded. Under the EO 13526, it would be in in our right to classify the entire HRC collection at the Secret level because of the “mosaic effect.” While there may be IC equities in the collection, I am very concerned about the inadvertent release of State Department’s equities when this collection is released in its entirety — the potential damage to the foreign relations of the United States could be significant.
***
From: Chuck Mccullough [sic]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:16 AM
To: [Redacted]
Subject: FW: SBU FW: Concerns about the HRC Review …
[Redacted]
Need you plugged in on this. Need to coordinate w/ State’s WB person.
In an August 2015 classified memo prepared by the FBI Counterintelligence Division regarding the findings of the ICIG with respect to Hillary’s email server, the FBI noted that the ICIG had found that in a sampling of only 40 of Hillary’s 30,000 emails, four classified emails were found. A subsequent letter sent by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to ODNI Clapper regarding this sample of Clinton’s emails noted that they were all classified at the secret level.
In an August 2015 internal FBI memo , the FBI notes that Hillary Clinton had signed a June 28, 2011, official correspondence advising all State Department employees that, “due to ‘recent targeting of personal e-mail accounts by online adversaries,’ State employees should ‘avoid conducting official Department business from (their) personal e-mail accounts.” The same FBI memo noted that Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy had sent a memo to all senior State Department officials on August 28, 2014, in which Kennedy included excerpts from the Foreign Affairs Manual that said that “classified information must be sent via classified e-mail channels only…”
The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also show infighting between State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy and the ICIG over the processing of the potentially compromised Clinton email communications.
A June 15, 2015, memo for the record prepared by the ICIG regarding the State Department’s review of Hillary Clinton’s emails indicates among other things that the retired foreign service officers that State was using to review Hillary’s emails were not “not optimal.”
Evaluation of other agencies’ equities is not optimal. State Department is currently relying on retired senior Foreign Service Officers to review for other agencies’ equities in FOIA cases. For example, a review of the first set of 296 emails received from former-Secretary Clinton and released on the State Department FOIA website identified material that should have been referred to IC FOIA officials for review prior to release. Recommend State Department FOIA Office request staff support from IC FOIA offices to assist in the identification of intelligence community equities. [Emphasis in original]
***
According to State FOIA personnel, during the State Department Legal Office’s review, four of the Bl [national security] exemptions were removed and· changed to “B5” FOIA exemptions (Privileged Communications). Recommend State Department FOIA Office seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified materials. [Emphasis in original]
It is unclear if the Department of Justice is reviewing the emails before FOIA release. Former-Secretary Clinton’s emails are the subject of numerous FOIA requests and multiple FOIA lawsuits. It may be prudent to integrate the Department of Justice into the FOIA process review to ensure the redactions can withstand potential legal challenges. If not already being done, recommend the State Department FOIA Office incorporate the Department of Justice into the FOIA process to ensure the legal sufficiency review of the FOIA exemptions and redactions. [Emphasis in original]
An August 4, 2015, interview by the FBI of State Department IG Steven Linick mentions an incident on “May 13, 2011 2:28 am Huma – Phil Rein potential hack.”
On October 15, 2012, Clinton’s IT technician Bryan Pagliano , sent to Bill Clinton’s aide Justin Cooper a bill indicating that on July 28-29, 2012, Pagliano had to address the issue of “Mailbox Corruption” of Hillary Clinton’s email server, spending a total of 5.5 hours on the problem. Other invoices show that he had to “fix corruption in justin’s [Cooper’s] mailbox; ” have a “conference call with security team;” “Blocked spamer [sic] smtp address for Viagra message;” “virus investigation and cleanup;” “clean up virus from bb [BlackBerry] profile;” and multiple “brute force attacks” against Hillary Clinton’s server, requiring him to “reset password.” The documents show that Pagliano was paid $40,337.86 over four years by the Clinton Executive Service Corp.
In a 2016 deposition in a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit , Pagliano repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions regarding IT support he provided to the Clinton email system.
An August 2015 letter from the United States Secret Service to the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI, addressing a request regarding preservation of records in connection with Clinton’s email system. The letter also cites Judicial Watch’s litigation concerning preservation of her email server records. The Secret Service writes that its searches “did not reveal any responsive documents … [n]otwithstanding, the Secret Service will send out a preservation request for the Agency records listed in your correspondence …”
A July 2015 letter from the National Archives requests information from the State Department regarding “the training, procedures and other controls” employed by the State Department to ensure key record management directives were implemented regarding “the management of email and other electronic records of senior agency officials.” Also, the Archives requests “that the Department contact the representatives of former Secretary Clinton to secure the native electronic versions with associated metadata” of the 55,000 hard copies of emails provided to the State Department.
November 2012 classified emails from Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, discuss a “Report of arrests – possible Benghazi connection” with her.
A request for travel dated November 2015 shows that the FBI dispatched special agents to Spain and Bahrain to conduct interviews in the “Midyear Exam” regarding a “sensitive investigative matter.”
Other released materials include letters from Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall throughout the production. On June 24, 2015, Kendall writes to the State Department Inspector General that the State Department is in possession of “all Secretary Clinton’s work-related … emails:” He continues that, as Hillary’s personal counsel, “We continue to retain a preservation copy of the .pst file containing the electronic copies of those e-mails, on a thumb drive that is stored in a secured safe at the offices of Williams and Connolly …”
I note at the outset that the Department of State is in possession of all of Secretary Clinton’s work-related and potentially work-related e-mails. Specifically, in response to an October 2014 letter request from the Department of State, Secretary Clinton’s counsel identified all work-related or potentially work-related e-mail in her possession, custody, or control. In total, 30,490 e-mails, all of which were from her @clintonemail.com account, were identified and provided in hard copy to the Department of State in _December 2014. A3 her personal counsel, we continue to retain a preservation copy of the .pst file containing the electronic copies of those e-mails, on a thumb drive that is stored in a secured safe at the offices of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 12th Street NW, Washington DC 20005. The only two persons authorized to access that thumb drive are me and my law partner, Katherine Turner.
“Judicial Watch uncovered new ‘cover-up’ records on the illicit Clinton email system that further demonstrate the sham nature of the FBI/DOJ ‘investigation’ of her,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These shocking new documents show that various Obama agencies were protecting Hillary Clinton from the consequences of her misconduct. It is well past time for the DOJ to stop shielding Hillary Clinton and hold her fully accountable to the rule of law.”
In a different lawsuit Judicial Watch previously released 186 pages of records from the DOJ that include emails documenting an evident cover-up of a chart of potential violations of law by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
And, in a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch uncovered 215 pages of records from the DOJ revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues.
Judicial Watch has previously released numerous instances of classified information distributed through Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email system. For example, see here , here and here .
And, Judicial Watch is currently conducting depositions of senior Obama-era State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides.
JW strikes again.
Lock her up!
5.56mm
The FBI is going to get right on that! (Well, I guess they’re busy with the coup right now, but I’m sure that they’ll get right to it after that.)
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
Just wondering.....
<><> Who transported SOS Hillary’s server from NY to NJ’s Platte River Networks?
<><>Did the Secret Service (who Hillary insists had been guarding it since it was really Bill’s Library/Foundation asset) accompany and supervise the transport of the server?
<><> Per the interview with Platte River Networks, did they just take it, lock it up, not power it up, connect it to the internet, or not have it functioning as an active email server?
<><> Was there continuity of server activity between May 2013 to August 2015, or did the server go off-line starting in June 2013?
<><> Who received actual server in NJ - the name of the Platte River Networks employee/technician? What WAS it - make/model/form factor, etc.?
<><> Did the Clinton Foundation (or issuer of the RFP on Hillary’s behalf) indicate that the company that would provide data services qualified to handle national-security-level data?
<><> In various interviews and reports, Platte River Networks repeatedly stated they were to “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server. What - specifically - does that mean?
<><> What did Hillary’s RFP/contract order the data center to do specifically?
<><> Does Platte River Networks have sufficient security clearance to handle this type of contract?
<><> What were the firewall protocols in place at the time?
<><> Who - by name - had access to the server, and the administrative authorization to wipe and cleanse the server? When was that done?
<><> Does “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server mean that they PRN was given the task to remove all data from the server when it received it in June 2013?
<><> Was malware or antivirus also on the server?
<><> Was the inherent firewall, virus protection, or operating system “upgraded, managed, and secured”?
<><> Any incidents reported such as DOS attack, hacking, etc.? What were they? How were they resolved?
<><> Other than arranging for the server to be moved from NY to NJ, what was the Denver company contracted to do in relation to maintaining the server?
<><> What tangible evidence is there that the server arrived in functioning condition, was being used as an email server, was “upgraded, managed, and secured”, then wiped just prior to seizure by the FBI?
<><> Were normal and regular backup procedures executed on the server, and where would the back ups be kept?
<><> If no backups were taken, was there a disaster recovery location?
<><> Where was that? If no backups and no disaster recovery, what was the plan if the equipment failed or found to have been wiped of any functionality?
<><> Were any foreign nationals employed at Platte River Networks, or at Datto, that had access to the Clinton server?
We worry for Tom. “They” have done some nefarious deeds against their enemies in the past.
“Nothing personal Tom, just business”, and then we read about an eyebrow raising suicide in a back alley, or a park somewhere.
I recall reading in Priestap interview released by Collins a couple weeks ago, it’s been testified that F_I folks didn’t even know that IC IG had made these reports!
Anybody know anything about statute of limitations regarding this mess? Are we to the point where Killary and her minions can walk away from any of this?
Sen Charles Grassley has expressed concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters (she is an atty for Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson) that inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.
“These limitations would necessarily have excluded, for example, any emails from Cheryl Mills to Paul Combetta in late 2014 or early 2015 directing the destruction or concealment of federal records. Similarly, these limitations would have excluded any email sent or received by Secretary Clinton if it was not sent or received by one of the four email addresses listed, or the email address was altered. “Further, the Wilkinson letters memorialized the FBI’s agreement to destroy the laptops. This is simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators. “The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate.”
Full text of the letter follows:
The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate. So we can better understand the Department’s basis for agreeing to these restrictions, please respond to the following questions as soon as possible, but no later than October 19, 2016:
1. What is the basis for the FBI’s legal authority—in any circumstance—to destroy records which are subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena?
2. Why did the FBI agree to terms that allowed it to destroy both laptops?
3. Has the FBI, in fact, destroyed any evidence acquired from the laptops or the laptops themselves?
4. Is there any circumstance in which an email from Ms. Mills to Mr. Combetta (and only Mr. Combetta) in December of 2014 or March of 2015 discovered on Ms. Mills’ laptop or Ms. Samuelson’s laptop would have been turned over to the investigative team under the terms of the Wilkinson letters? If so, please explain.
5. Given that the range of emails the FBI could view under the terms of the Wilkinson letters were only those sent or received while Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, how did the FBI intend to investigate the laptop files for evidence of possible intentional destruction of records or obstruction of evidence given the fact many of those emails were out of the allowed date range?
6. Did the filter team identify any emails that were otherwise responsive but were not turned over to the investigative team because they were privileged? Did anyone create a privilege log for such emails?
7. How many total documents were reviewed by the filter team from both laptops? Of those, how many were deemed privileged? Of the total, how many were sent to the investigative team?
8. How many total documents were withheld from the investigative team because they fell out of the date range imposed by the June 10, 2016 agreements?
9. How many of the documents acquired by the FBI from both laptops were classified? Please list each document, the classification level, and the classifying agency.
10. The Wilkinson letters apparently provided for different treatment of email fragments from Secretary Clinton’s email addresses on the “clintonemail.com” domain versus her email addresses on the “blackberry.net” domain. Specifically, email fragments without a date sent to or received by either of the clintonemail.com addresses were included, while email fragments without a date that were sent to or received by either of the blackberry.net addresses were excluded. Please explain the difference in treatment of these email addresses.
11. The Wilkinson letters included a caveat that the FBI was not assuming custody, control, or ownership of the laptops for the purpose of any request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
a. How does that statement square with the reality that the FBI had both laptops in its possession?
b. Has DOJ ever used that statement or a similar statement to avoid compliance with FOIA?
This nice to see but anyone with any type of background that had a security clearance and common sense knows there was a cover up and Clinton’s lies when she said there were no classification markings on the emails as an excuse not to mention destroying evidence which is also obstruction.
BLUF: Unless there criminal indictments and prison time served then it’s all irrelevant and those in power continue to fxck real Americans.
Bttt.
5.56mm
I agree, there’s been many “suicides” of people connected to the Clinton’s.
JW doing the our Justice Department refuses to do.
L
Thanks jazusamo.
The Clinton’s have been very quiet lately.
I’d bet Hillary is as nervous as an old whore in church.
Amazing.
Lock Her Up!
LOCK HER UP ^10
Hillary Clinton could still face charges, experts say
excerpt:
Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is getting another look with the release Thursday of a Justice Department inspector general report scrutinizing the FBI's investigation into whether she committed crimes using a private email server as secretary of state.
Although it would be controversial, the Justice Department is able to reopen the Clinton email case, and experts say President Trump's 2016 adversary arguably could be charged until March 2025 — after Trump would leave office even if he wins a second term.
Sloppy workers, leakers, whistleblowers, and spies face a variety of criminal charges for mishandling classified records. But there are leading options available to prosecutors, with varying statutes of limitations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.