"How To Handcuff A National Security Investigation"

Bruce Moran, National Security Advisor

Bruce J. Moran is a senior National Security Advisor who focuses on strategic planning for National Security issues. As a consultant, he works with public officials, U.S. Government committees, departments, agencies, think tanks, and corporations. He works on special national security projects and defines clear "hands on" working solutions for Crisis Preparedness and Crisis Readiness scenarios. He has in-depth experience in foreign policy, security operations & Hi-Tech systems (connectivity, interoperability, and interfacing) such as SMART* Fusion protocols and applications. He consults with the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Commerce, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, House Committee On Foreign Affairs, Joint Economic Committee, Senate/House Committees on Banking/Finance, Senate Permanent Committee On investigations and the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence.

Chuck has traveled to over 50 countries around the world and has coordinated contracts, policy, and agreements with foreign government officials. He also has experience building, managing, and motivating high-performing teams that exceed expectations and company objectives.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/09/09/how-to-handcuff-a-national-security-investigation/#1dd81c097b08

How To Handcuff A National Security Investigation

September 9, 2016

Chuck Floyd and Bruce J. Moran

Mr. Floyd, Army officer retired, was a political appointee at the Department of State. Mr. Moran is a senior national security advisor.

As one reads the just released “Federal Bureau Of Investigation” (FBI) footnotes interviewing Hillary Clinton, one wonders about the purpose and strategy of the FBI. Was the FBI handcuffed from doing a credible full-fledged transparent national security investigation? It now appears that the “Department Of Justice” (DOJ) has lowered national security standards since anyone investigated for mishandling USG classified information can talk for hours claiming—“I did not know,” “I cannot recall,” or “I cannot remember.”

The manner in which the Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) campaign for President has addressed the truths surrounding Benghazi has triggered much controversy. In addition, HRC’s subsequent handling of email transmissions, the handling of classified documents and the failure to obtain necessary security clearances and authorizations, and the national security risks and exposures they created, this has certainly raised many eyebrows. HRC’s flouting of strict national security standards and practices also has raised deep concerns about her respect for the rule of law. As a lawyer, and former first lady, U.S. Senator (Armed Services Committee) and Secretary of State, HRC has been involved with classified documents for over 30 years. Therefore, the notion that she does not recall, cannot remember or is ignorant of the law is ridiculous and not believable (but that is what a seasoned Washington, D.C. lawyer would say).

This article discusses: 1) The very troubling and serious problems surrounding the Hillary Clinton DOJ/FBI national security investigation; 2) The national security mandates Hillary Clinton was charged with following in implementing President Obama’s Executive Orders 13526 and 13587; 3) The mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton on her unsecured server and devices (2009-2013); and 4) The dangers, risks and exposures that Hillary Clinton created while dealing with classified information: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret and Special Access Program information.

It is quite evident that the media did not cover the many issues, risks and problems that highly impact national security outlined in this article. HRC’s problems not only concerned the “secret” and “top secret” emails about which the public has been informed. HRC actually has been engaged in significantly more activities than most people realize that engendered a host of deep national security concerns and problems.

The FBI’s investigation of HRC’s activities also involved many unusual acts, including the DOJ’s final recommendation, which raised two important questions:

• 
  How did the FBI’s interview, investigation and DOJ recommendation not follow normal DOJ practices thereby handcuffing the hands of justice? The unorthodox FBI national security recommendation, itself, raises its own questions. Final recommendations for prosecution should always be made by Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch. AG Loretta Lynch’s position requires she recommend an individual to prosecute a case against Hillary Clinton. Director James Comey made such a recommendation playing the role of the independent prosecutor to not prosecute. In other words, Director Comey did not just report his investigative findings to AG Lynch, but made a determination which AG Lynch’s job requires. AG Loretta Lynch deferred to Director Comey’s recommendation relinquishing her (washing her hands of the) AG responsibility to fully review the HRC national security investigation and make the final determination.
  •What is Hillary Clinton hiding in her many lies and excuses in using an unsecured private server?
  
   

Unconstitutional use of NDAs to silence federal employees and ordinary citizens

AG Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey required FBI agents to sign non-disclosure agreements concerning the Hillary Clinton investigation. Did Ms. Lynch compel Mr. Comey to sign a non-disclosure agreement concerning such investigation? Was James Comey asked to NOT sit in on the questioning of Hillary Clinton? It now appears that the DOJ’s FBI, following in the footsteps of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has lowered national security standards by ensuring the silence of anyone participating in the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. When FBI agents sign an NDA, are they precluded from reporting to and testifying before Congress?

It is also quite evident Congress did not conduct proper oversight in its committees and subcommittees as it relates to violations of individuals’ First Amendment/U.S. Constitutional rights. A review of The White House Office of Management and Budget website “Nondisclosure Agreements Notice“ reveals that ALL federal employees, in addition to private contractors working for the government, are now REQUIRED to sign nondisclosure agreements as supplements to their federal employment contracts! The indiscriminate use of these agreements, especially where national security is not engendered, not only violates individuals’ First Amendment/U.S. Constitutional rights, but also violates Constitutional Separation of Powers to the extent it precludes federal employees from conveying (reporting to and testifying) important non-classified information to Congress they are otherwise required to transmit under applicable federal law.

Critical national security safeguards not in place for handling classified information

USG Agency Heads by law have the critical responsibility to safeguard classified information; there are no excuses. President Obama made this crystal clear in his Executive Order 13526 (12/29/09) and Executive Order 13587 (10/07/11). It is quite apparent that HRC did not have adequate safeguards in place for classified email transmissions. Even the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)’s investigatory findings revealed “Confidential,” “Secret,” “Top Secret” and “Special Access Program” (“SAP”) information appeared in email transmissions on her private server.

Important critical safeguard questions remain concerning how U.S. government agencies and departments checked and verified classified information given to HRC. The FBI investigation did not clear up who from the White House, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency knew, authorized and approved Confidential, Secret, Top Secret and SAP (“classified”) information to be given to HRC and her staff. The investigation did not disclose when periodic checks and counter-checks were in place to ensure such classified information given to HRC and her staff from agencies and departments was properly handled, shared, reviewed, marked, dated, secured, stored, deleted then destroyed according USG mandates and EO safeguards. It was not discovered who was responsible and accountable for not following strict national security rules and practices by just giving classified information without any concerns for laws, acts or executive orders with implementing directives and guidelines, which prohibit such actions. Quite importantly, who knew Hillary Clinton was working from a private server and gave HRC information that was marked classified? Who now checks and counter-checks cabinet members, deputies, assistants and staff to ensure they are in compliance with federal standards to handle, share, secure and store classified information? Did the White House, Department of Justice and State Department set the tone for handcuffing the FBI investigation? Have any of these questions been asked?

Storing and securing classified information failures

The non-classified information HRC kept on her unsecure personal server was stored with “Confidential,” “Secret,” “Top Secret” and “Special Access Programs” information designations. Had the national security classified information protection system, to which HRC was subject, been functioning properly, it would not have permitted these distinct classified information types to be conflated or commingled.

It’s truly mind boggling how enemy nation-state players and sophisticated hackers could have gained access to HRC’s confidential information describing covert personnel, operations, foreign sources and sources’ families. Indeed, nefarious players have a myriad of creative ways (multiple access points) to hack & tap (hacking and wiretapping) back and forth, between and around the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, HRC’s private server, and HRC’s family and friends’ personal computers and devices, not to mention other espionage tradecraft means. The U.S. government classified security system is designed to secure documents and would have prevented HRC’s server and email schemes where American lives were at stake!

Quite importantly, HRC’s storing of non-classified information with classified information raises other serious questions: Who was doing what with the high-impact classified information? Where was it being done–at home or abroad? Who now possesses such information, and can the possession of it cause immeasurable damage? Did the FBI question HRC about these matters, and were her responses satisfactory?

National security undermined and personnel exposed

The FBI did not publicly address how HRC had primed herself for espionage attacks. With possible disclosure of Top Secret and Special Access Programs, dire consequences exist for intelligence personnel who can be and have been targeted, tortured and killed. Covert intelligence and military operations were also compromised. Our enemies can kidnap, hold ransom, torture or kill covert agents’ family members traveling overseas or at home in San Diego, Chicago and NYC. In other words, U.S. national security can be seriously compromised at multiple levels inside and outside of government agencies in the United States and around the world.

Classified information whereabouts, disposal and security clearances

At this point, no one knows where classified information ended up. Aside from being in the possession of Hillary Clinton, classified information may have appeared on the computers and/or personal devices of HRC staff members both inside and outside of the U.S. government domain. Classified information may have been mixed in with non-classified information involving personal family, friends or close associates, Clinton Foundation personnel, donors or outside contractors, or with a variety of other individuals with whom the Clinton family does business.

Had the national security classified information protection system to which HRC was subject been functioning properly, it would have ensured that sensitive information was carefully disposed of. Only a senior person such as HRC could have dodged the strict security requirements of the U.S. government. It still remains questionable whether only non-classified information had been deleted from HRC’s server(s) and personal devices, apart from the classified information. If non-classified information alone had been deleted, the company that had been paid to delete such information, presumably, would not have bragged about how it had “Bleachbit” the information prior to the FBI investigation. In other words, if, as the FBI concluded, HRC lacked the requisite intent to violate the law, why then did she permit the use of such a software program and enterprise system? How was the FBI handcuffed from investigating the “Bleachbit’ as being an obstruction of justice?



HRC was first investigated by State Department Inspector General Steve Linick and First Intelligence Inspector General Charles McCoullough, then by FBI Director James Comey. However, these investigations failed to determine definitively whether strict security mandates for handling, sharing, reviewing, securing, storing, deleting and disposing of classified information had been followed. It is not clear, for example, whether HRC, Cheryl Mills, David Kendall, Heather Samuelson or other individuals had sought counsel or attained approval from the inspector generals, the source agency or the FBI to handle, share, review, delete and then dispose of the information on HRC’s unsecured private server. It also remains uncertain whether Cheryl Mills, David Kendall, Heather Samuelson, Huma Adedin, Jake Sullivan, Datte Inc/Platte River Networks (employees) or other undisclosed individuals from the State Department or the Clinton Foundation handled, shared, reviewed, deleted or disposed of HRC’s classified information, and whether they had secured the appropriate security clearances to do so. These state department employees and political appointees, as well as, the Under Secretary of Management and CIO should have been questioned about whether they knew, shared, reviewed, hid, deleted or destroyed this information? Was the FBI handcuffed from thoroughly investigating the Under Secretary of Management and CIO?

This raises numerous red flags about the potential for gross negligence and criminality in connection with the marking, dating, handling, sharing, storing, securing, deleting and then destroying of classified information. Indeed, it has not yet been confirmed whether a flash drive holding thousands of the deleted pieces of information exists, and whether that information was later downloaded to another computer at another location!

Current security threats with cyber-terrorism, nation state espionage and ISIS infiltration

Even deeper national security concerns arise regarding the extent to which the whole USG inter-related computer system network at the Executive Branch and on Capitol Hill are and remain “cybersecurity-sound.” If Hillary, a cabinet member, can easily operate outside-the-security-box, it is likely other exceptions have been made and security mandates undermined. Every cabinet member and USG official entrusted with Secret, Top Secret and Special Access Program information must adhere to the highest standards, so innocent lives are not sacrificed by sloppy and misguided notions of national security. What security gaps now exist at the Executive Branch and on the Hill? Lack of Intent or knowledge is not an excuse. Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat. Has Congress yet engaged in proper oversight to fill the National Security gaps? Has it taken the necessary steps and actions to identify who handcuffed the FBI?

Justice Department’s inability to secure answers to most questions

How is it possible that the DOJ did not supervise and guide the FBI in this national security interview and investigation? Why did the FBI not find that any of HRC’s actions ran afoul of at least one of the many provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917 (as amended), the Hiss Act of 1954, the Patriot Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? Surely, HRC’s actions as a Cabinet member should have triggered some form of sanction, rather than the slap-on-the-hand admonition she received. Her actions were at the very least negligent, and these negligent actions contravened E.O.s 13526 and 13587 and their implementing directives and guidelines.

For example, White House Cabinet members take an oath of office and sign agreements to ensure they follow all classified security measures and protocols. Of what significance are an oath of office and an agreement signature if the FBI Notes indicated otherwise? A cabinet member’s oath and signature also do not mean very much when that cabinet member (i.e., HRC) did not: 1) Personally make inquiries to government security authorities regarding how a private server should properly be secured top to bottom; 2) Know that a “C” marking indicates Confidential on a classified document; 3) Find out until the FBI made serious cybersecurity checks that her own private unsecured server was hacked by a foreign hostile; and 4) Gain sufficient information and understanding to know if her private server was properly secured (2009-2013) through her contacts with intelligence agency heads or their respective special matter experts. How do these failures demonstrate that HRC could do the very basics in carrying out her security duties and responsibilities required as Secretary of State, a position that is fourth in the line to the presidency? Given all of HRC’s various claims as reflected in the FBI notes, how can Hillary Clinton in good conscience talk to anyone about what she knew or did not know? How can HRC truly know whether or not the information she had previously discussed was classified information? How can HRC truly know whether the person she had been talking to had the appropriate security clearance(s) to hear, handle, review and discuss such classified information at the sensitive levels at which HRC was conversing without compromising national security?

Hillary Clinton’s fiasco of not publicly accounting for classified information

Had HRC told the truth and publicly accounted for her failures in protecting the private server and personal hand-held devices and those belonging to her personnel and USG assistants/staffers, and had HRC’s follow-up actions prevented the national security compromises that have since occurred, this article would not have been written.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been around the national security block for at least 30 years: Governor and attorney, President and First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. Consequently, the American people expect that Hillary Clinton, as a presidential candidate, will be able to thoroughly explain what duties and responsibilities she will bear to preserve U.S. national security if she were elected president of the United States of America.

In order to appear credible in providing such an explanation; however, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton must thoroughly explain to the American people how her prior actions, as former Secretary of State, failed to ensure that national security would not be compromised. To do this, she needs to answer the following national security questions before and at the first debate:

• Did your private server and personal devices meet the NSA Suite B and Fed FIPS 140 certification for voice, text, emails and teleconferencing (seamless mobile encrypted communication)–protecting from sensitive data loss, infiltration, espionage or sabotage. If not, why not?
• Were your private server and personal devices set up to withstand vulnerabilities from a) passive radio attacks, b) active radio attacks, c) insider attacks, d) network attacks, e) and device attacks?
• Were your private server and personal devices set up to withstand unwanted attacks, tap third party exploits, tower spoofing and surveillance by domestic/foreign corporations or foreign governments? If not, why not
• Were your private server and support team able to instantly identify an attacker which aligns enterprise defense to the adversary’s offense 24/7 real time reporting and analysis and engagement metrics along with giving detailed technical and strategic analysis of adversary capabilities? If not, why not?
• Were your private server and support team able to identify the adversary tradecraft/activities (adversary-in-motion, reconnaissance, exploitation, privilege escalation, lateral movement and exfiltration)? If not, why not
• What was your intent by setting up a private server with emails, instead of using a USG existing computer system designed for classified information
• Who at the White House, Department Of Justice and the U.S. Department of State knew you were circumventing the USG system?
  
   

Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ability to adequately respond to these questions will speak volumes about her fitness to become the next Commander in Chief or be subjected to federal prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice.

—
This article does not cover the purpose or the intent of HRC in setting up the servers and private emails (i.e., conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation), but this article does cover security risks and exposure in doing so. This article also does not cover if a conflict of interest existed for Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac (Phoenix) right before Hillary Clinton’s FBI investigation was coming to an end–which sheds another dark shadow over the FBI investigation, itself.