Tag: House Intelligence Committee

EXCLUSIVE: Devin Nunes Has Top Secret Clearance Revoked

Sources with links to the intelligence community report that Devin Nunes, the former leader of the Russia inquiry, and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee* has had his TS/SCI clearance revoked.

As we reported in April, Nunes obstructed justice when, in collusion with Michael Ellis, his former lawyer on the Intelligence Committee, he blurted out evidence in an ongoing criminal case.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

As we also reported, this evidence included revealing one White House staffer, Boris Epshteyn, was still under investigation. From that report:

sources stated Epshteyn was named to the FISA court in June as a target, but – and I re-emphasize this point – that application was denied by the court.

Knowing the above, his departure from the White House after two epic failures by Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not, I believe, a coincidence. Mr. Epshteyn has not been indicted (as far as I know) still less convicted of any crime. But it seems fairly obvious to me that Nunes is obstructing justice in plain sight

Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information. This is an extraordinary situation for a member of the House Intelligence Select Committee and reflects appallingly on Paul Ryan and on the House Oversight Committee, respectively the elected official and the Republican-led Committee responsible for ensuring the integrity of Congress.

In a later story we also reported exclusively that sources with links to the intelligence community said that Boris Epshteyn paid hackers from the Kelhios botnet on behalf of both the FSB, of which, these sources say, he is an agent, and Donald Trump. We will expand on this reporting later today. Mr. Epshteyn has emphatically denied he is an FSB agent. He has refused to answer our questions as to whether he is a registered agent of influence of the Russian state under FARA. Our report has been updated to reflect Mr. Epshteyn’s denials. Nevertheless, we continue to report what we have been told on the matter by sources with links to the intelligence community.

*correction – Mr. Nunes formerly led the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia inquiry. He is still (disgustingly) its Chairman, as tweeps have pointed out.

If whistleblowers wish to contact patribotics they are encouraged to get in touch on Twitter, or via the secure email listed here

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Marshals Execute Seizure Warrants At Trump Tower

Donald Trump Sealed Indictment Started With Eric Schneiderman

 

Boris Epshteyn Named in FBI FISA Application; Did Nunes Obstruct Justice?

 

On November 7th, I reported at Heat Street that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant covering the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

I reported that the FISA warrant had been granted after an earlier, failed application to the court in the summer named Trump and “at least three other men, who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates“.

Those names, sources said, were Donald Trump, with Paul Manafort and Carter Page (two men that had formed part of Trump’s campaign) and Boris Epshteyn, who at the time I reported, the eve of the election itself, had only acted as Mr. Trump’s media surrogate.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

Since that time, Mr. Epshteyn has become a part of government as a Transition Team official and now at the White House and I feel able to be explicit as to the names sources gave me as forming part of the summer application to the court.

It is important to note that the application to FISC made by the FBI in June* was denied. The FBI must, by definition, have represented to the FISA court that they believed Trump, Page, Manafort and Epshteyn were either actual Russian agents, or Russian “agents of influence”, which can be unwitting, as Brad C Moss, a national security lawyer, pointed out in my report for Heat Street.

The application that was successful, in October, named two Russian banks – rather than US persons suspected by the FBI to be agents of influence for a foreign power – as it targets- and was drawn more tightly under the ‘minimization’ doctrine around money laundering and financial offenses, I reported. But, the FISA warrant explicitly granted the FBI permission to examine the communications of U.S. persons as they related to this money laundering inquiry. I did not report any “wiretapping” of Trump tower, nor any surveillance; rather, my reporting faithfully reflected the views of my sources that a warrant was granted.

Indeed, rather than any concept of new surveillance, I reported that the FBI had sought permission to examine already existing evidence, provided to the CIA or NSA by allied intelligence services, that related to this inquiry – specifically, to the money laundering inquiry. They previously had been unable to listen to this evidence, or to read these intercepts, because they involved “U.S. persons”. Contrary to the Trump-Bannon bleating about “deep state”, sources indicated that Director Comey was most concerned to follow the law very precisely; “in order that the chain of evidence have a clear basis in a warrant”, as I said at the time.

Two months later Paul Wood of the BBC published a seminal report on the entire Russian war on American democracy, which included further exclusive details on the FISA warrant, which added to my own reporting and made the picture much clearer.

The existing evidence, he reported, was a tape made by a Baltic state’s intelligence service, of Russian money going into the Trump campaign. It was made in April, and involved a US person or persons. Wood exclusively reported a six-agency task force including the US treasury was set up to investigate this. (He also reported a second failed application to FISC in August, something I did not learn from my sources at the time, but which sources have since confirmed to be accurate). Therefore, ‘money laundering’ it may be, but ‘from Russia into the Trump campaign’ is the second part of that puzzle, and explains, we may postulate, why Comey described to Congress his national security investigation as including any criminal aspects. It is why the warrant against the Russian banks was sought in a FISC and not an ordinary court. As had I exclusively reported on November 7th, the case was both criminal and a top-level national security case.

Exposing new and unreported evidence in such a case as (I believe) both Trump and Nunes have done is itself a crime.

Wood did not specify, but I believe it to be a fair inference, that one of those US persons was Paul Manafort, who took over the Trump campaign in March, just before the tape was made in April. Carter Page wrote to the FBI demanding they stop investigating him; leaving only Mr. Epshteyn as the unreported name in the failed applications.

I cannot confirm whether Mr. Epshteyn is, as has been speculated about, ‘Source E’ in the Steele dossier, but he fits the description given of that source. What I can report is that sources stated Epshteyn was named to the FISA court in June* as a target, but – and I re-emphasize this point – that application was denied by the court.

Knowing the above, his departure from the White House after two epic failures by Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is not, I believe, a coincidence. Mr. Epshteyn has not been indicted (as far as I know) still less convicted of any crime. But it seems fairly obvious to me that Nunes is obstructing justice in plain sight –  and should be arrested.

When Nunes said:

I do not believe that was a slip of the tongue. I believe he referred to Mr. Epshteyn and tipped him off on live television.

Further, Mr. Nunes’ rants about FISA warrants (plural – I have only reported one, more, clearly, may exist) ought not to be assumed to be fact free. Instead, they should be assumed to be a completely illegal and garbled recitation of classified information illegally acquired and distributed by Nunes. When he says what he read “did not relate to Russia” he means he read details of a money-laundering investigation under FISA (but it did relate to Russia). When Nunes says he “did not hear the word Russia” nor would he need to if he were illegally reading transcripts of conversations involving money laundering, names and amounts. And when he refers to a member “of the Presidential transition team” on which he himself sat, I believe he is referring to Boris Epshteyn.

Mr. Epshteyn has, again, not even been indicted, far less convicted in any court. But IF he is indeed under a top secret investigation and his buddy and Trump lackey Nunes has just discussed both the evidence against him and the fact that he is under investigation, then it is Representative Nunes who needs to be arrested. The House Intelligence Committee should do more than demand that Speaker Ryan remove Devin Nunes as chairman of the Russian hacking inquiry. It should call Nunes as a witness, under oath. Having sat myself on a Select Committee, I know very well that politicians become friends with their opposite numbers. It is hard indeed to turn on a colleague with whom one is friendly. But the Committee must steel themselves to their manifest duty. Removal of Mr. Nunes from the House Intelligence Committee is now a matter of the national security of the United States at the highest level.

  • [correction: story originally wrongly wrote July; the Nov 7 story correctly sad June]

Wikileaks Hands “Keys” to Putin’s Russian Hacker – Readers, Leakers Tracked

Exclusive analysis by Laurelai Bailey, published by Patribotics this week confirmed that Julian Assange and Wikileaks obtained two new servers in Russia just one week before the hacked Podesta emails were released.

Laurelai reported that the ultimate registrant of the servers was one Peter Chayanov, of Russia, a known cyber-criminal and hacker.

Julian Assange has been identified by the US intelligence community as a front for Russian distribution and ‘deniability’ of Russian government-sponsored hacking. Today, however, as a result of our reporting on the dox by Op Ferguson, that link is far clearer.

The internet is tightly controlled in Russia. Cyber criminals have to answer to Putin. Mr. Chayanov is the head of a firm called Hostkey, which hosts mail spammers and other malware and hacking tools, despite offering web space to Wikileaks. Wikileaks chose to use a Russian hacker to host their site – and they knew that he was connected to Vladimir Putin and operated with the blessing of Putin’s government.

Putin and Assange are thus already linked.

But it is much worse for Wikileaks – and the internet in general – even than it looks. In order not to bury the lede, I will report what appear to be the conclusions of the web developers and hackers on Twitter discussing Laurelai’s story, and then report on how they appeared to have arrived there.

* Wikileaks has handed Chayanov access to everything stored on its site and servers

* The Russian hacker and spammer can ‘monitor traffic

* He can tell who is reading anything on the Wikileaks site anywhere in the world

* The Russian hacker has access to all documents that have been sent to Wikileaks

* He can probably bust the anonymity of any computer or user who thought they were anonymously donating to Wikileaks

* It is not reasonable to suggest that this hacker is other than linked with Russia’s GRU – if he has it, they have it

* Through Julian Assange and his website, it appears that the Russian hacker and his government can track any readers of the Wikileaks site and any donors of material to it, thus allowing Russia to ‘blackmail’ anyone who ‘sent secrets’ to Wikileaks as a ‘whistleblower’.

I will update this story later in the day summarizing discussions among the hacker and developer community on Twitter that led to this bombshell conclusion.

All of the above appear to be factual statements. It is not a fact that Russia did indeed monitor web traffic to Wikileaks, but it seems to be an absolute fact that if they want to, they can – and it seems, from the reaction of Mr. Chayanov upon being outed, almost totally certain that Julian Assange handed Russia the keys to the Wikileaks site deliberately.

When Julian Assange wrote “Wikileak the Government” he apparently meant “Wikileaks is the Government (of Russia)”.

A subsequent post will explore the further possibility that Peter Chayanov is also Guccifer2 – providing the materials that hacked the US election, as well as helping Assange and Wikileaks work with Putin to do so.