The Clinton State Department’s Major Security Breach That Everyone Is Ignoring
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Peter Strzok’s testimony about the email server scandal involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised headlines because of his defiant, disrespectful, and unapologetic attitude about the bias revealed in his text messages that permeated his work at the FBI.
Then, there was the verbal combat between him and Republican members of the two committees holding the joint hearing, and between the Republicans and Democratic members who were running interference for Strzok and acting as his defense counsel.
The news media jumped on an exchange in which Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked Strzok if he lied to his wife about his affair with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page in the same way as he was in testifying to Congress. That was too much for the Democrats and the media, who leaped to Strzok’s defense.
The media, however, virtually ignored another exchange between Gohmert and Strzok that revealed a potential bombshell. Gohmert asked Strzok about his meeting in 2016 with Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan, an investigator and lawyer, respectively, for then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough (an Obama appointee).
McCullough sent them to see Strzok, who was the FBI’s deputy assistant director for the Counterintelligence Division, to brief him and three other FBI personnel about an “anomaly” that their forensic analysis had found in Clinton’s server.
According to Gohmert, the inspector general discovered that, with four exceptions, “every single one” of Clinton’s emails—more than 30,000—“were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.”
In other words, according to the information Gohmert received from the intelligence inspector general, something was causing Clinton’s server to send copies of all of her email communications outside of the country “to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.”
If true, this means that Clinton’s email communication with her top aides, department leadership, ambassadors, and other officials, including President Barack Obama, may have been read by an alien entity, perhaps a foreign power hostile to the United States. That could include confidential, sensitive, and even classified information about our foreign policy or our allies.
Gohmert’s exchange with Strzok doesn’t reveal who the foreign entity is, but if not the Russians, the likely culprit is the Chinese government, which has a special unit of hackers within its military that has long targeted the U.S.
Our intelligence agencies have identified the Chinese as responsible for the biggest data breach to ever hit the federal government, the 2015 hack of the Office of Personnel Management that stole the files, including security clearance applications, of 21 million current and former federal employees.
Here is how Strzok should have responded to Gohmert’s question about the briefing that Strzok received from the intelligence inspector general’s staff:
As the FBI’s lead counterintelligence agent, I understood that this was a major security breach, with widespread implications over the disclosure of sensitive and classified communications.
I immediately implemented protocols to investigate the extent of the problem; to notify all agencies and government officials whose communications had been compromised; to assess the damage that may have been done to specific operations, assets, programs, and personnel; and to prepare recommendations on how to remedy the problems caused by this disclosure.
Unfortunately, Strzok actually said that while he did “remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions,” he did not “recall the specific content or discussions.”
In other words, the FBI’s main counterintelligence director doesn’t remember being told that the secretary of state (his preferred candidate for president) had a breach in her computer system that forwarded all of her internal communications—including emails containing classified information—to a foreign entity.
Since he claimed not to remember being told about something that serious, he obviously did nothing about it.
The question is which of two scenarios is more likely true. Either 1) Strzok was completely incompetent, or 2) his pro-Clinton bias displayed in the thousands of text messages between him and Page caused him to downplay this security issue and ignore it, because it could hurt his favored presidential candidate if it came to light.
Strzok’s anti-Trump, pro-Clinton bias was overwhelming. The texts between him and Page are direct and damning evidence in and of themselves. But there is more. His body language and attitude during the hearing also showed bias against Donald Trump and for Clinton.
His lack of prudent action as an agent when he was briefed about this massive security breach suggests that he may have abandoned his role as a law enforcement officer, and skewed the results of a politically sensitive investigation to serve his own political leanings.
One of the other disturbing bits of information that came out of this exchange was that, according to Gohmert, the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General called Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, “four times” because it wanted to brief Horowitz about this forensic analysis and this security breach. But, according to Gohmert, Horowitz “never returned the call.”
According to Horowitz’s recent report on the Clinton email server investigation, the FBI “did not find evidence confirming that Clinton’s email server systems were compromised by cyber means,” but they could not definitively determine that her servers had not been compromised.
Obviously, if the intelligence inspector general has information to the contrary, that would be significant.
If this is true, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the intelligence inspector general have an obligation to disclose to the public and to lawmakers the foreign entity that hacked into Clinton’s server and received all of those communications.
That disclosure would be similar to the way they revealed that it was the Russians who hacked into the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign.
They also need to disclose what steps have been taken to investigate the extent and depth of the problems caused by this potential security breach.
And those in the political arena who have been painting Strzok as some kind of hero who deserves a Purple Heart need to stop insulting our intelligence and our veterans.
If this is an example of how Strzok did his job, he should have been fired long ago, and he is certainly no hero.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
112 visitors
Why are we not surprised to find yet ANOTHER massive security problem from the Clintons.....and why are we not surprised that most of the media is simply ignoring the resulting massive violations of the Espionage Act?
According to Gohmert, the inspector general discovered that, with four exceptions, “every single one” of Clinton’s emails—more than 30,000—“were going to an address that was not on the distribution list.”
In other words, according to the information Gohmert received from the intelligence inspector general, something was causing Clinton’s server to send copies of all of her email communications outside of the country “to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia.” Hmmmm - wonder if that coulda been the Pakistani IT guy's parting gestures?
Given your repeated use of this I know you are excited by the meme, but at least try and use it when it makes sense.
deleted
So you are going to spam it now.
Galen - try using the reading skills you shill others for not using.
Thanks.
I see articles like this as a way to distract from what your "Fearless Leader" is saying and, doing. Take for instance, the news today that Trump wants to take away security clearances for six former government employees, something that hasn't been done before now.
Galen - this topic is about Hillary Clinton - keep it that way.
I wouldn't have come back to this article if you hadn't answered my posts, in fact I had dismissed it as a POS article, al Right Wing hit piece on Hillary, I don't do hit pieces.
Just one more hit piece to continue to beat a dead horse that has already been rendered into pulp, due to the fear of the consequences of what is going on at their own political end. If Hillary was truly guilty of any changes she would have been happily prosecuted long ago. It is simply one more hit piece against her as a distraction.
Benghazi!! Her Emails!! Her Server!! Just one more that has nothing to prosecute her on or it would have already been there.
Yep. If they found this so called smoking gun, something would have been done by now.
But zip, zero, zilch.
It is? The seed cites multiple people and makes allegations against multiple people.
Keep up your new Trump attacks RW - now, discuss the topic.
And, "Alice in Wonderland" has multiple characters but - gasp - who is the topic of the book????
The topic has become such a fly ridden dead horse that it does not really warrant further endless discussion. The fact is, if Hillary truly were guilty of all the things she has been accused of by the right wing, she would be in jail now. That she isn't after all the investigations over all these years, says it all.
However, if that is all that you have to detract from your moron in Chief, I will gladly leave you and your minions it to.
Good night.
Gee...
Gosh...
D'ya think???
Well reading your seed it looks like Strzok and Gohmert are the topic.
BTFW, in order to discuss the 'story' one can't claim the 'Mad Hatter' character is 'off topic'...
Yeah, that's why they have professional level baseball games also, to distract you from anything President Trump. And they play music on the radio for the exact same reason........
Ridiculous.
Louie Gohmert is one of the stupidest people in Congress. I would have to see something from an independent source befor I would believe this.
I searched for Frank Rucker and Jannette MacMillan on Bing and all I got were links to right wing and far right web sites of dubious quality. Red State was the closest I got to "mainstream media". Usualyl this is a bad sign for a stories credibility.
Someone once said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and, over again, expecting a different result", how many times did Gohmert investigate Benghazi expecting a different result? Eight.
Hilarious.
That doesn't say much for the jurisdictions where he got those positions.
Gohmert is dumber than a sack full of hammers.
Yup - can't discuss - let's attack the source.
Thanks John.
Find this story presented this way on a mainstream media source and you may have something. As it stands we can only conclude that Gohmert and your sources are presenting only one side of the story.
So far, as do all of your "stories" based on "Opinions".
To have a discussion, one must first have a topic. I have mine - it's Hillary Clinton. Yours, obviously, is attacking sources.
U. S. Army, Universities and colleges in Texas, and as a Representative of the state of Texas.
Surely you don't have anything bad to say about Texas, do you?
The entirety of your source is something Louis Gohmert said in a hearing. That's not good enough.
Who are 'we' 1st?
Don't you want to know the definition of "is" first??
I didn't ask you for a definition 1st. I asked you who you mean when you cite 'we' since you cited them multiple times...
Answer?
S I G H............
You know what I just noticed! The rolls eyes emoji has the exact same facial expressions as me when I roll my eyes. Weird........
I don't know what to say about this topic that hasn't already been said. I think if there was any "there/there" it would have been found by now. I'm also not worried about any ongoing or new investigations surrounding this issue. If it makes the conspiracy fanatics happy then welcome to shangri la.
PJ - one of the things that concern so many is that there is a huge plethora of "wrong-doings" of folks from the previous administration yet, the vast majority of "stuff" on the Front Page deals with this administration.
I personally believe that when Mr. Mueller has finished his investigation(s), there will be a massive investigation and many, many folks from the previous administration will be serving a lot of jail time.
JMHO.
You could be right regarding staff from previous administrations. I'm on board with sifting out those who have misused their position while in the government but its difficult for me to take anyone serious who supports this Administration. The plethora of lies is staggering but they are not given a second glance and are defended mercilessly by his supporters.
This concern for our country due to actions of previous Administrations falls flat. How's about we focus on the current Administration and stop the damage that is currently happening? We can do more than one thing at a time, right?
Totally agree.
1st, Trump is a media whore. He NEEDS to be on the FP and he does everything he can every day to stay there.
You want retrospection. Tell Trump to STOP wrecking the train, stop shooting himself in the foot, stop threatening war, stop kissing Putin's ass, stop LYING!
Perhaps then the country could take a deep breath and look at the past. As it is, we're hanging on by our fingernails.
And it's not because of Hillary or Obama like the Right wing tries so desperately to pin it on. It is no one but their own "Hero" who is right out of come comic book. Only what he is doing to our country is totally sad, not at all funny.
No, you're hanging onto your fingernails 'cause Trump is a businessman - not a politician - different methods, different results.
Please stay on topic.
Me, too!
Exactly. There's a point where the trumpsters' double standards disqualify them completely.
Obtuse.
If my comment were off topic you wouldn't have replied to it would you 1st?
I just found it yesterday or the day before! That and this one
Strozyk was also one of the lead investigators of all 9 benghazi investigations, (which by right wing logic), means he prevented Clinton from winning the election.
You need to learn how to put the "/S" at the end of your comments.
I don't need you to tell me how to fucking post, either.
Guys, please cut each other a little bit of slack here. Thanks
I'm going to ask you nicely, per the CoC, to not post on my thread.
"If a member is violating the CoC with the apparent intent of disrupting or being arbitrarily argumentative, the author has the right to politely warn the member that they are violating the CoC and to stop or leave the article."
Thanks
1st, Mr. Frost is on topic. I am reviewing the other comments you flagged now.
I understand the right wing is nervous and may be harboring regrets for hanging their hat on 'the Trump pole' as they realize 'the Trump' was that bag of donuts with the hole in the bottom of the bag.
But, there was nothing in Peter Strzok's testimony that was false or inaccurate. As far as some 'the inquisitors' however, that could not be said.
Incorrect labeling bbl - there were no Inquisitors.
You, as an individual, can not "PROVE" any of Strzok's testimony. Leave that to the professional lawmakers/attorney's/judges.
deleted
The 'inquisitors' are the members of congress that refuse to honor the oath they took. Deflection and protection of Donald J. Trump is not in that oath or The Constitution.
I do not have to prove anything about Strzok's testimony. If the congress can prove he lied under oath, shielded information or denied knowledge of things he most definitely had knowledge of, then I am sure Nunes, Jordan and cohorts would have already drawn their swords. But they didn't, because they can't. Nothing Strzok said was untrue or misleading. Again, I will affirm I can't say the same thing for the inquisitors.
Besides, Strzok is not on trial. Russian connections, Russian money, Russian influence and perhaps Russian collusion by witting or unwitting American actors are under investigation. This is all this is. Will there ever be charges or indictments? Depends on the evidence. It always depends on the evidence. Always.
I will add this. It seems the right wing always demands proof of something, anything.
Well, just fine. Where is the proof Strzok lied or mislead in his testimony? Accusations are easy and apparently legal whether they are based in fact or not.
I wish there was a law that a false accusation results in a $1,000,000 fine per accusation. Paid to the falsely accused. That would clean up politics, ya think?
On topic please - only time.
You as an individual can not PROVE any of Gohmert's claims. The author sure as hell doesn't.
This is just more "Look over there!" distraction to try and obfuscate the monumental disaster in the white house. There is no coordinated "Deep State". There are long term justice department patriots who aren't blinded by ideological rhetoric and are deeply concerned for our nation in this time of crisis. The conspiracy theories Trumpites regurgitate are even too crazy for flat earthers to repeat.
The fact is, even if there was no direct Trump on Putin collusion action, we still got stuck with the most unstable narcissistic half wit the universe could manage. The deplorable's elected a punch line and can't understand why two thirds of Americans aren't laughing.
On topic please - only time.
Look at all the people trying to distract from the subject of the article.
Sad.
deleted
Look at the fact that the seeder has failed to support the posit of his seed. Perhaps you can come up with a link to this "“anomaly” that their forensic analysis had found in Clinton’s server.' since 1st hasn't.
I'll jump to the defense of the truth. I watched that shit live and Gohmert NEVER asked that question.
That was as far as I got into the seeded article before I checked out the source. Half the yellow dot in the arrow says everything I need to know.
Gotta love that. The source itself is run by people that heavily funded trump.
Can't discuss it - go for the source - way to go.
So I should trust an opinion from a source that backs and heavily funds trump and the opinion from said source is doing nothing but trying to discredit anyone that would have touched the investigation surrounding trumps campaign.
No thanks.
There is no "it" to discuss. There's nothing there.
So the only significant thing about your seed is its extraordinary hypocrisy, building an indictment from nothing. People are Commenting on that one significant aspect of your seed.
They could not be more "on-topic".
The overall veracity of the author and the credibility of the publication are relevant when discussing a 'commentary' 1st. In the case of your seed, BOTH are questionable.
But hey, all you need to is post a link to ANYTHING that supports the posit of your seed. Since Gohmert cited the IG, one would presume that the basis of his questioning comes from the IG report. Post the page from the IG report where the 'anomaly' is documented. I'll wait...
Actually he did, here's the tape,
No need, I saw the original.
Gohment talked about Strzok's FACIAL expression, NOT his words...
From what I got out of it, he said it went to credibility.
Which if they are going by that standard, trump would have zero credibility as he cheated on all his wives.
And most of his vendors too.
And, One has to wonder how many of them have the same if not worse credibility.
Ain't that the truth. We only hear about the ones that get caught.
deleted
BTFW, I don't see any link to any source for all of this bullshit from Gohmert. Post a link to the testimony that Gohment is referencing to. If he's just pulling it out of his ass, which is typical of Gohmert, then you can keep it.
Ahhh - back to telling others how to post???
Waiting in vain for your link to even a modicum of proof of the 'anomaly'.
The sources highlighting this story are a who's who of fake news
Gohmert: Watchdog Found Clinton Emails Were Sent To ...
10 days ago · ... Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent ... every single one except four, over 30,000 , were going to an address that was not on the distribution list ...
Nearly All Clinton Emails Sent to ‘Foreign Hostile Power ...
8 days ago · “ Every single one except four—over 30,000 — were going to an address that was not on the distribution list ... were suing for Clinton’s emails based ...
WATCHDOG FOUND CLINTON EMAILS WERE SENT TO …
Write a comment. A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI didn’t follow-up on that finding.
Majority Of Clinton Emails Funneled To "Foreign Entity ...
9 days ago · ... every single one except four, over 30,000 , were going to an address that was not on the distribution list ,” Republican ... Hillary Clinton's emails were …
Rep. Gohmert Reveals Govt Watchdog Found Clinton Emails ...
9 days ago · The ICIG found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails , every single one except four, over 30,000 , were going to an address that was not on the distribution list ,” Gohmert said to Strzok during the hearing on Thursday.
Russia hacking Hillary' s emails is no laughing matter ...
... an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through ... her emails , every single one except four, over 30,000 , were going to an address that was not on the ...
Gohmert Grills Strzok On Suspiciously Ignored Emails ...
10 days ago · ... were going to an address that was not on the distribution list ... Clinton’s emails that were going to ... more than 30,000 emails , “ every single one ...
Clinton emails were sent to a foreign entity ...
Welcome Gohmert: Watchdog Found Clinton Emails Were Sent To ‘Foreign Entity’ July 12th, 2018 Former U. S . Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Photo
FBI ignored hacking of Hillary' s emails by 'foreign entity'
10 days ago · ... Hillary Clinton’s emails were ... emails , every single one except four, over 30,000 , were going to an address that was not on the distribution list . ... .
And the winner is???????
Found a source you don't like yet John? How 'bout discussing the topic?
Go on Google or Bing or any search page and find a credible source for this story.
Not for Gohmert saying it to Strozk, we know that happened. Find a source that describes the situation of the 30,000 emails the way Gohmert described it to Strozk.
When you accomplish that we will have something to discuss. I am not taking the word of a right wing site known for bad information.
deleted
Please stop.
Now, I ask that you discuss the thread/topic or don't comment at all.
Thanks.
You want us to discuss the machinations of Louis Gohmert?
Fine, post a link to the FACTS behind this 'anomaly' that he alleges exists and after reading it, I will discuss it.
Gohment has got to be one of the dumbest human beings on the planet.
"Thank you for giving a pass to my voters." L. Gohmert.
snorkel
Republican's spent over 800 days investigating Benghazi.... There was never even ONE charge, or indictment. These were REPUBLICAN LED INVESTIGATIONS. There was nothing there.
So why are we going back to this? Here is why...
5 years of benghazi investigations... NO criminal charges, no indictments.
Less than 2 years of trump/russia investigations, (and one, not even complete), 191 criminal charges, 3 companies indicted, 5 guilty pleas, 35 indictments...
But the GOP wants to re-visit the 9 benghazi investigations, and completely ignore the trump/russia investigations....
Exactly who's side is he GOP on?
It's not the USA.
Hmmmm - where in the article does it discuss Benghazi?
Get back on topic - only time.
Honest question here. If you all believe all of this, why take it out on everyone that is to the left of Genghis Khan?
Would it not make more sense to get mad at the reps you all support, that seem to be doing nothing about it?
As there appears to be an intent of badgering the author of the seed to provide information that is covered in the thread and there has been no information provided by the poster to offer counter-point, gonna lock this down until I discuss the results/lack thereof of requesting discussion versus attacks.
Thanks for viewing and have a nice day.