Oversight Unable To Discover Which FBI Agents Leaked Clinton Investigation Info Because Goddamn Everyone Was Leaking Stuff

from the selective-transparency dept

Selective leaking has always been a part of the federal government's day-to-day business. When there are narratives to massage, controlled leaking is tolerated. Leaks that make the government look bad tend to result in prosecutions, but leaks that act as highly unofficial PR or align with the motivations of the agencies they're leaked from are largely ignored.

Every so often, though, oversight is asked to keep an eye on leaking, if only to make it appear that all leaks are considered equal. In the interest of perceived fairness, the FBI's Office of the Inspector General has taken a look at the incidents surrounding the selective release of information about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server during her stint at the State Department under Barack Obama.

There were questions about political motivations -- ones not helped at all by selective leaks about the investigation. This was on top of supposedly official actions, like then-FBI director James Comey's decision to hold a press conference to announce the outcome of the FBI's investigation. In the agency's determination, what Clinton did was unwise and gave the appearance of impropriety, but was not illegal.

That would have been it. But shortly before the 2016 election, James Comey decided it was time for him to act unwisely and give off an air of impropriety by announcing the FBI would be reopening its investigation of Clinton and her email server, thanks to developments in an unrelated case. Comey's actions were also questionable, but apparently not actually illegal.

The OIG tried to dig into the FBI's use of selective leaking during this time period. And it has arrived at the conclusion that it's almost impossible to accurately point fingers, much less discourage powerful federal agencies from doing whatever the hell they want to, policies and laws notwithstanding. (h/t Brad Heath)

The report [PDF] leads off with a summary of the undoubtedly frustrating investigation. First, it points out how things should be handled…

Among the issues we reviewed in that report were allegations that FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information regarding the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. FBI policies strictly limit the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, and require all other employees to coordinate with or obtain approval from the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) in connection with such communications.

And follows that up with a resigned statement about how things actually are…

Nonetheless, as described in our 2016 pre-election report, we found that these policies appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. Specifically, in our analysis of FBI telephone records, FBI email records, FBI text, and Microsoft Lync instant messages, we identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters.

The Federal Bureau of Sunk Ships (feat. Loose Lips). This would be a national embarrassment if it weren't so hilarious. The FBI screws over public records requesters on a regular basis and issues tight-lipped "no comments" or Glomars whenever it's being scrutinized by critics. But apparently everyone on staff is handing out secrets to half the Rolodex whenever they're feeling particularly chatty about politically-tinged investigations.

And if this seems damning, imagine what the OIG would have found if it was actually engaged in an investigation determined to root out criminal activity.

Because this was a non-criminal administrative misconduct review, there was no legal basis to seek a court order to compel Internet service providers to produce to the OIG the content of any personal email communications for these FBI employees.

As much as I'd like to see some federal agents suddenly jobless, I appreciate the restraint of the OIG, which would have been treading into First Amendment waters by seeking content of communications with journalists. All the same, it appears the FBI doesn't really need to keep paying people to staff its Public Relations department. It has all the unofficial help it needs to get the word out.

Those who were caught chatting it up with reporters tended to pass the buck, offering the Inspector General facts not in evidence to justify their casual disregard of FBI policy.

Employees interviewed by the OIG generally claimed that they believed their contacts were either authorized by OPA or a field office Special Agent in Charge (SAC) or Assistant Director in Charge (ADIC) to provide background about an FBI initiative or completed investigation, or were personal in nature. Given the absence, in most instances, of any documentary evidence reflecting the substance of these communications, the OIG was unable to determine whether these communications were consistent with the explanations provided by the FBI employees or instead involved the sharing of non-public information with reporters.

Behold the Federal Office of the Future! It's not just telecommuting and flexible staffing. It's also paper trail-less, which probably helps the environment in some way. God bless America.

In conclusion: holy shit.

Our ability to identify individuals who have improperly disclosed non-public information is often hampered by two significant factors. First, we frequently find that the universe of Department and FBI employees who had access to sensitive information that has been leaked is substantial, often involving dozens, and in some instances, more than 100 people.

Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks. For example, during the periods we reviewed, we identified dozens of FBI employees that had contact with members of the media.

Forget FOIA. Maybe all anyone needs is a barely targeted "request for comment." And it would be ridiculous to believe the FBI is the only agency that behaves this way. The federal government -- as multiple presidents have discovered -- is staffed by the leakiest bunch of leakers who ever leaked. The problem isn't the leaks. It's the selective prosecution of leaks. If the leaks serve the government, they're just part of the public service infrastructure. But if they embarrass the government or expose wrongdoing, they're suddenly criminal acts. And that unequal treatment cannot be addressed by internal investigations. It's a mindset problem -- one the government has no intention of changing, no matter who's occupying the Oval Office.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, hillary clinton, inspector general, james comey, journalism, leaks, oversight, reporting, transparency

Gag Order Lifted On Yet Another Trump DOJ Leak Investigation That Targeted Journalists

from the serving-the-president-is-more-important-than-serving-the-people-apparently dept

Another leak investigation that involves the DOJ going after journalists' communications has been revealed. This would be the third time since Biden took office that subpoenas targeting journalists have had their gag orders removed, allowing the public to see what the DOJ was up to during Trump's unceremonious reign as president.

The previous revelations involved journalists employed by the Washington Post and CNN. This one targets one of Trump's favorite media punching bags, the "failing" New York Times. This investigation dates all the way back to James Comey's last months as the head of the FBI, a position he was ousted from when he failed to show Trump the required amount of obeisance.

The letter this week disclosing the seizure of phone records involving the Times reporters — Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eric Lichtblau and Michael S. Schmidt — had hinted at the existence of the separate fight over data that would show whom they had been in contact with over email.

[...]

The Justice Department has not said what leak it was investigating, but the identity of the four reporters who were targeted and the date range of the communications sought strongly suggested that it centered on classified information in an April 2017 article about how James B. Comey Jr., the former F.B.I. director, handled politically charged investigations during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The article not specifically mentioned in the government's subpoena dealt with an email or memo not found in the Clinton email dump released by the State Department and available to search at Wikileaks -- one that said then-AG Loretta Lynch would throttle the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. Comey, however, reopened that investigation shortly before the election, something that may have played a part in Trump's election win.

This memo, however, most likely prompted Comey to take the case public back in 2016. Comey held a press conference announcing the results of the investigation -- one that did not include criminal charges for Clinton. This is generally the sort of thing the DOJ and FBI rarely do, especially when the target of an investigation is a presidential candidate. Comey shrugged off appearances of politically-motivated impropriety twice, but still failed to satisfy his new boss' desire to be surrounded by loyalists.

The Biden Administration has placed Merrick Garland in charge of the DOJ and appears to be doing some house cleaning. Questionable investigative efforts involving leaks and journalists have been stripped of their gag orders and made public. But there's a delay here that doesn't square with the new administration's statement that it respects the First Amendment and has no interest in targeting journalists. This one rolled on for a few months after Biden's election, allowing the DOJ to continue pursuing these journalists' communications while swearing their supervisors to secrecy.

While the Trump administration never informed The Times about the effort, the Biden administration continued waging the fight this year, telling a handful of top Times executives about it but imposing a gag order to shield it from public view, said the lawyer, David McCraw, who called the move unprecedented.

The gag order prevented the executives from disclosing the government’s efforts to seize the records even to the executive editor, Dean Baquet, and other newsroom leaders.

Mr. McCraw said Friday that a federal court had lifted the order, which had been in effect since March 3, freeing him to reveal what had happened.

The DOJ was ultimately unable to obtain the email records it requested from Google. The company fought the subpoena, refusing to hand over the requested information. And with other DOJ officials recommending the case be closed because it was unlikely to result in criminal charges, the DOJ abandoned this effort and finally allowed the gag order to be lifted.

But even the lifting of the gag order was inexplicably delayed. The DOJ claimed in January that any notification would jeopardize the investigation and give targets an opportunity to destroy evidence. And in March, the DOJ continued to press for secrecy, asking a judge for permission to tell NYT's legal team but refusing to allow the targeted journalists to be notified about the government's desire to collect their email records.

While it's good to see the new DOJ express its support of journalists and the First Amendment, we need to remember Biden served two terms under Barack Obama -- a president who set records for leak investigations and prosecuted whistleblowers. Cleaning up Trump and Barr's mess is the right thing to do but the DOJ will continue to serve whoever's in charge and is always willing to wave aside constitutional concerns if it's politically expedient to do so.

Filed Under: adam goldman, doj, emails, eric lichtblau, fbi, gag order, james comey, journalism, leaks, matt apuzzo, merrick garland, michael schmidt, records requests, whistleblowing

James Comey Offers Up Half-Assed Apology For Being Such An Asshole About Encryption

from the still-mostly-an-asshole dept

Former FBI director James Comey's move to the private sector has been… well… annoying, if we're honest. After being booted by President Trump for allegedly failing to pledge his fealty to the Oval Office throne, Comey has become a hero of the so-called Resistance. Those lionizing Comey as some sort of truth-to-power speaker seem to have forgotten he ignored everything ever about pre-election propriety to announce his reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, and his years spent trying to undermine encryption.

You can take a man out of the FBI, but you can't take the g-man out of the man. Comey may be as unimpressed as many of us are with the current White House leadership, but that only makes him somewhat relatable, not some hero molded from the fires of the long tradition of reshuffling agency leadership with every peaceful transfer of power.

Comey will speak to whoever will listen and/or publish his thoughts. He recently spoke at a conference and offered up his limited apologies for the War on Encryption he waged following the San Bernardino shooting.

As apologies go, it isn't one. Comey says the only error he made was being a bit too aggressive when seeking to undermine the security of millions of device users. (h/t Riana Pfefferkorn)

Comey said it was "dumb" to launch the encryption debate by loudly criticizing companies for seeking encryption that would prevent law enforcement access even with a warrant. "I would do that differently if I had the chance," he said at a conference hosted by the Hewlett Foundation last week.

Beyond that, Comey wouldn't have changed much. And his stance is still firmly anti-encryption. Sure, it sounds like he thinks encryption is important, but the only version he'd be willing to live with if he were still running the FBI would be a version no one would trust.

Comey says, "you could build a key that sits with the U.S. government, a key that sits with the maker of that device and a key that sits with a non governmental agency" and a judge could order these keys to be combined to grant access to the data. He argued such a model could still be built despite widespread criticism from technologists who think such a solution would be impossible or insecure.

This proves Comey still unwilling to be the adult in the room, even as he repeated his assertion that it's all he really wants: an "adult conversation." Plenty of adults have spoken, contradicting Comey's fervent, but unfounded, beliefs that compromised encryption is still secure encryption.

Comey says it's time for the U.S. to have an "adult conversation" about what's at stake as more and more devices and services are encrypted. He warns that "broad swaths" of American life are now occurring out of the reach of law enforcement, and he's worried that the public isn't talking enough about the implications that could have for society.

Whatever. As far as I can tell, law enforcement is doing just fine. The stuff that's encrypted doesn't appear to be much of a problem. The FBI is having no problem radicalizing troubled youths into DOJ prosecution fodder. The ATF is still running stash house stings, turning poor people into federal inmates for thinking about robbing a fake drug stash house of its nonexistent drugs. The DEA is still spending a great deal of time looking for cash, rather than drugs. And local law enforcement is doing the same thing, concentrating on asset forfeiture, SWAT team raids, and talking people into having sex with officers pretending to be 14-year-old girls. Not really seeing the problem encryption poses for the law enforcement in any of these endeavors.

Comey isn't here to speak truth to power or expound on the virtues of the rule of law. He isn't even truly apologetic for his heavy-handed anti-encryption rhetoric over the past few years. He wants people to believe he's a paragon of virtue, thanks to his unceremonious ouster. But he's still the same guy who used to run the FBI and he still has the same goals. Getting fired hasn't made him a better person and it sure as shit hasn't made him a hero.

Filed Under: computer security, doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, james comey

Court Says Comey And Other DOJ Officials Must Answer BuzzFeed's Questions About The Steele Dossier

from the not-as-big-as-you'd-think,-but-still-kind-of-big dept

Since publishing the urine-soaked "Steele Dossier," BuzzFeed has been targeted with multiple defamation lawsuits. Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, ultimately dropped his lawsuit against the website after his own legal problems pretty much demanded he focus his legal attention elsewhere. Oh, and it was a lawsuit he was likely to lose, what with a lot of the alleged defamation being factual statements and any remaining defamation having been penned by the author of the dossier, not BuzzFeed itself.

Another doomed lawsuit is still active -- this one brought by Aleksej Gubarev and a couple of his companies (XBT Holdings and Webzilla, Inc.). Gubarev claims the next-to-last paragraph of the Steele Dossier defames him and his by linking Gubarv to Russian hacking attempts targeting the Democratic National Committee.

This lawsuit is likely doomed to fail as well, what with the alleged defamation having been penned by Steele, not BuzzFeed. But while it rolls towards this seemingly inevitable conclusion, the process continues with the subpoenaing of witnesses for both sides. BuzzFeed wants to depose people with knowledge of the events depicted in the dossier -- high-powered people like former FBI Director James Comey and other DOJ/FBI officials.

As Eriq Gardner notes on Twitter, this request has actually been granted, which is kind of a big deal.

Here's the text of the tweet if you can't see the embed:

WOW! This just in: A judge grants BuzzFeed's motion to compel testimony from James Comey and others at the Justice Dept. and FBI over the Trump Dossier.

The court has decided the answers BuzzFeed seeks from these officials is relevant and could contribute to the affirmative defenses the website has raised. From the order [PDF]:

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, and for the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the subpoena—as substantially narrowed during the course of this litigation—is not unduly burdensome, and that BuzzFeed has made a sufficient showing of need to overcome the law enforcement privilege. The testimony that BuzzFeed seeks is essential to its defense against the defamation action and it cannot be obtained from any other source. Additionally, the release of the testimony will have a minimal impact, if any, on law enforcement interests, particularly in light of the substantial amount of information already officially acknowledged about the Dossier’s provenance and subsequent use by the FBI.

Accordingly, the court grants the Motion to Compel and orders the Government to produce, subject to a protective order, an affidavit that is responsive to the three topics set forth in BuzzFeed’s narrowed request.

This is a big deal, considering FBI/DOJ officials tend to remain beyond the reach of subpoenas thanks to hundreds of law enforcement/national security excuses that prevent most citizens from asking them any questions directly, much less under oath. So, kind of a coup for BuzzFeed and its legal team.

But wait, there's more less! Dismiss any images of Comey and other FBI officials taking the stand in court or spending hours being deposed by BuzzFeed's lawyers. That's just not happening. What's being compelled is the answer to three questions, which can all be answered with a single word.

Revised Narrowed Topic No. 3: The Government need only respond to one of the following and shall specify in its affidavit whether it is answering (A) or (B):

(A) Prior to 5:20 p.m. EST on January 10, 2017, did the FBI and/or any of the other Defendant agencies possess the two-page memorandum contained within the Dossier dated December 13, 2017, i.e., Report 2016/166?

(B) Prior to 5:20 p.m. EST on January 10, 2017, did the FBI and/or any of the other Defendant agencies possess all 35 pages of the Dossier?

Revised Narrowed Topic No. 7: Did the FBI receive from Senator John McCain a copy of the first 33 pages of the Dossier (i.e., all pages other than Report 2016/166) on or about December 9, 2016?

Revised Narrowed Topic No. 8: Did Mr. Clapper, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Brennan, and/or Mr. Comey, before January 10, 2017, brief President Obama about allegations contained in the Dossier?

Despite the FBI/DOJ only being required to answer three yes/no questions, the government is still arguing the request is too burdensome. The DOJ claimed -- with a straight face and under oath -- that answering these three questions would "divert crucial resources away" from its law enforcement and natsec work. The judge disagrees:

What started as a demand for documents and testimony covering nine separate topics is now a request to respond by sworn affidavit to three discrete questions, which likely can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Not a heavy lift.

The government also argued that being compelled to answer three yes/no questions would result in it being swamped with similar requests from other litigants engaged in lawsuits over the same subject matter. The court lols and asks the government if it even bothered to assess the situation before making that claim.

Three lawsuits in the nearly 18 months since the Dossier’s publication—only one of which involves a demand on the Government—does not suggest there will be, as the Government Respondents fear, a mass “proliferation” of actions.

As for the government's claims answering these questions would compromise an ongoing investigation into Russian election interference, the court points to all the stuff already made public by the Nunes Memo, the Carter Page FISA warrant affidavits, and other public statements made by government officials.

To be sure, this is big news. The government isn't forced to hand over info -- however limited -- from ongoing investigations very often. This is a rarity. But it's not going to result in cross examination on the witness stand or a bunch of lawyers and clients gathered in a conference room objecting to each others actions over the minimal interactions from government officials. This is more BuzzFeed Poll than Perry Mason, but it's still nice to see a court give the government's oh-this-is-so-very-burdensome arguments the full, dismissive discussion they clearly deserve.

Filed Under: aleksej gubarev, christopher steele, deposition, doj, fbi, james comey, steele dossier
Companies: buzzfeed

Inspector General Not Too Happy With James Comey's Handling Of The Clinton Email Investigation

from the FBI-still-sucks-but-in-exciting-new-ways! dept

The damning report the President has been waiting for has arrived. The Inspector General's report covering everything from James Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation (terribly with bonus insubordination) to a couple of FBI agents forming a two-person #Resistance (stupid and made the FBI look bad, but not illegal) runs almost 600 pages and won't make anyone looking to pin blame solely on one side of the partisan divide very happy.

It's been claimed the report would finally show the FBI to be an agency filled with partisan hacks, further solidifying "Deep State" conspiracy theories that the government Trump runs is out to destroy Trump. It was somehow going to accomplish this despite many people feeling the FBI's late October dive back into the Clinton email investigation handed the election to Trump.

Whatever the case -- and whatever side of the political divide you cheer for -- the only entity that comes out of this looking terrible is the FBI. That the FBI would engage in questionable behavior shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but the anti-Trump "resistance" has taken Trump's attacks on the FBI as a reason to convert Comey, the FBI, and the DOJ into folk heroes of democracy.

The summary of the report [PDF] runs 15 pages by itself and hands out enough damning bullet points to keep readers occupied for hours. Then there's the rest of the report, which provides the details and may take several days to fully parse.

Here are some of the low lights from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, possibly the only person who should be touting "Deep State" theories since he's spent his IG career being dicked around by the DEA, DOJ, FBI, and DEA.

The report says everything about the Clinton email investigation was unusual. Termed the "Midyear Exam" by the FBI, the investigation was mostly a voluntary affair. Most of the evidence and testimony obtained was obtained from consenting witnesses and participants. The FBI rarely felt the need to compel testimony or evidence with subpoenas. It also did not access the contents of multiple devices used by Clinton's senior aides, devices that may have contained classified info that had been circulated through a private email server. As the report notes, this is at odds with Comey's sudden interest in Anthony Weiner's laptop, where his estranged wife (and former Clinton personal assistant) Huma Abedin apparently had stored copies of Clinton emails.

The IG says the tactics used were unusual but does not pass official judgment on them. However, the actions of five FBI employees involved in the investigation did further damage to the FBI and its reputation by taking an investigation already viewed as politically-questionable and aggravating the perception.

In undertaking our analysis, our task was made significantly more difficult because of text and instant messages exchanged on FBI devices and systems by five FBI employees involved in the Midyear investigation. These messages reflected political opinions in support of former Secretary Clinton and against her then political opponent, Donald Trump. Some of these text messages and instant messages mixed political commentary with discussions about the Midyear investigation, and raised concerns that political bias may have impacted investigative decisions.

However, the IG did not uncover evidence suggesting any of these FBI employees had the power to steer the investigation. Some of those engaged in anti-Trump texts actually pushed for additional subpoenas and search warrants in an investigation that seemingly had little use for any testimony not obtained voluntarily. But that doesn't mean these actions were harmless.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility.

From there, it moves on to James Comey's surprising decision to go public with the email investigation's conclusions in July of 2016. This followed the softening of language in the FBI's investigative report. Clinton's handling of classified info went from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless." The possibility of hostile actors accessing Clinton's email server went from "reasonably likely" to "possible." Then Comey decided to go public, cutting plenty of people out of the loop so they wouldn't prevent him from doing so.

Comey acknowledged that he made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership about his plans to make a separate statement because he was concerned that they would instruct him not to do it. He also acknowledged that he made this decision when he first conceived of the idea to do the statement, even as he continued to engage the Department in discussions about the “endgame” for the investigation.

Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions.

[...]

We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.

The late October letter to Congress about the reopening of the investigation isn't viewed as any better by the OIG. Comey claimed he needed to do this because withholding the discovery of emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop might have been viewed as swinging the election in Clinton's favor. The IG disagrees.

Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice. We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation as to why transparency was more important than Department policy and practice with regard to the reactivated Midyear investigation while, by contrast, Department policy and practice were more important to follow with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Russia investigations.

Comey’s description of his choice as being between “two doors,” one labeled “speak” and one labeled “conceal,” was a false dichotomy. The two doors were actually labeled “follow policy/practice” and “depart from policy/practice.” Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment.

Then comes the irony. As Comey became the front-mouth for an investigation he shouldn't have been talking about, he routinely engaged in the same behavior he was currently investigating.

We identified numerous instances in which Comey used a personal email account to conduct unclassified FBI business. We found that, given the absence of exigent circumstances and the frequency with which the use of personal email occurred, Comey’s use of a personal email account for unclassified FBI business to be inconsistent with Department policy.

In addition to being a violation of FBI policy, James Comey -- currently idolized by some as a speaker of truth to power for being fired by the president -- also violated FOIA law by using a private email account for government communications. Comey wasn't the only one -- other agents involved in the investigation routinely used private email accounts -- but he was the FBI's personification of the Clinton email investigation. On top of this, he told other FBI agents the use of personal email accounts would subject them to harsh punishment.

In an October 2016 speech at an FBI conference in San Diego, Comey said, "I have gotten emails from some employees about this, who said if I did what Hillary Clinton did I'd be in huge trouble. My response is you bet your ass you'd be in huge trouble. If you used a personal email, Gmail or if you [had] the capabilities to set up your own email domain, if you used an unclassified personal email system to do our business... you would be in huge trouble in the FBI."

Some may quibble about the lack of classified info being circulated by these agents and their Gmail accounts, but the fact remains the use of private email accounts increases the risk of circulation exponentially. Sticking to government accounts reduces this possibility to zero.

There's much more in the report, including some discussion about the propriety of the Russian influence investigation that Trump claims is a witch hunt. Nothing in the report suggests the investigation isn't valid, even if the actions of agents (the anti-Trump texting) and Andrew McCabe's non-recusal (his wife took money from a Clinton-connected PAC) managed to cover everything with a slimy gloss of impropriety.

The upshot of the report is this: James Comey deserved to be fired, although probably not for the reasons Trump had in mind when he did it. The people employed by the FBI are not always able to set aside their personal biases when engaged in investigations. But the FBI is no one party's political tool. It's a blend of both sides, which makes it unlikely anything was done intentionally to harm Trump or Clinton's political prospects. For all the complaining done by Trump, he's the one in office. If the election was "thrown" by Comey's fourth quarter audible in the email investigation, Trump was the beneficiary of the FBI's actions. This makes complaints about a Russian investigation "witch hunt" incoherent, as it tries to retcon the FBI's actions to portray them as being #NeverTrump even when they were (not officially) helping him. The simultaneous investigations of Clinton and Trump make it difficult to craft a coherent conspiracy theory, but it certainly isn't stopping anyone from trying. The FBI is untrustworthy, but it's not a kingmaker.

Filed Under: doj, donald trump, email, fbi, hillary clinton, inspector general, james comey, michael horowitz, private email, procedures

The FBI's War On Encryption Is Personal, According To Comey's New Book

from the fight-for-the-future dept

A recently-released Inspector General's report shows the FBI didn't try as hard as it could to find a way into the San Bernardino shooter's locked iPhone. It appears FBI officials were more interested in obtaining a favorable court ruling than seeking technical assistance from anyone other than Apple, despite the DOJ's courtroom claims about time being of the essence.

This had a lot to do with the current FBI leadership. James Comey made fighting encryption his personal crusade -- one that has been carried forward by both the DOJ and the FBI's new director, Christopher Wray. Comey's new book about his government career -- one that came to an unceremonious end when President Trump fired him -- provides a few more details about his crusade against math and personal security.

A passage in Comey's new book briefly discusses his initial reaction to the news smartphone manufacturers would be moving to default encryption. Comey claims the Snowden leaks prompted a worldwide shift to encrypted communications before moving on to Apple and Google.

In September 2014, after a year of watching our legal capabilities diminish, I saw Apple and Google announce that they would be moving their mobile devices to default encryption. They announced it in such a way as to suggest -- at least to my ears -- that making devices immune to judicial orders was an important social value. This drove me crazy. I just couldn't understand how smart people could not see the social costs to stopping judges, in appropriate cases, from ordering access to electronic devices.

There's more to it than this, but this is from Comey's perspective. Part of the move to device encryption was due to pressure from legislators that phone companies "do more" to protect customers whose devices had been stolen. And some of it was probably backlash to the flow of Snowden leaks, showing the government had assembled a massive surveillance apparatus following the 9/11 attacks, turning tech companies into unwitting accomplices of the surveillance state.

As Comey sees it, the tech sector fails to comprehend the consequences of encrypted communications and devices because it only deals with the positive side of human connections.

The leaders of tech companies don't see the darkness the FBI sees. Our days are dominated by the hunt for people planning terrorist attacks, hurting children, and engaging in organized crime. We see humankind at its most depraved, day in and day out…

I found it appalling that the tech types couldn't see this. I would frequently joke with the FBI "Going Dark" team assigned to seek solutions, "Of course the Silicon Valley types don't see the darkness -- they live where it's sunny all the time and everybody is rich and smart." Theirs was a world where technology made human connections and relationships stronger.

Conversely, the FBI views any communications it can't see as suspect. It ignored solutions to engage in a courtroom battle over a phone that ultimately held nothing of interest. The FBI continues to push for a government solution to the problem -- a mandate it can wield in every situation. Under Comey's command, the FBI has shown it is unable to honestly hold an "adult" conversation about the issues. If officials like Comey feel tech companies are being deliberately obtuse, they cannot honestly argue the FBI isn't acting the same way.

Filed Under: encryption, fbi, going dark, james comey

Surveillance Fans Angry Journalist Used Metadata, Contact Chaining To Out Comey's Secret Twitter Account

from the not-only-months-after-the-fact,-but-with-zero-self-awareness dept

Earlier this year, journalist Ashley Feinberg outed then-FBI Director James Comey's secret Twitter account, using nothing more than the "harmless" metadata people like James Comey have said no one needs to worry about. The secret account was sniffed out through something the Intelligence Community likes to call "contact chaining." The path ran through Comey's children's Instagram accounts and one conspicuous follower of Comey's previously-secret account: Lawfare writer, surveillance apologist, and personal friend of Comey's, Benjamin Wittes.

For some reason, months after the fact, Wittes has decided the route to unmasking Comey's Twitter account was more like stalking than journalism. Wittes objected to the "use" of Comey's children -- the seemingly-unrelated contacts who Feinberg chained together to reach her conclusion. This was weird because, as Marcy Wheeler points out, Comey seemed to be impressed by the journalist's work. Even weirder is the fact Wittes (and former IC attorney/Lawfare editor Susan Hennessey) didn't see the obvious parallels between Feinberg's detective work and the FBI's own use of metadata, contact chaining, and working its way towards targets through vast amounts of unrelated data.

Not only did he say he wasn't mad and compliment her work, but he posted the link to FBI jobs.

I'd say Jim Comey sees a similarity in what Feinberg did.

I'm all in favor of protecting the accounts of children from such contact chaining — and am really not a big fan of contact chaining, generally. But those who, like Comey and Wittes and Hennessey and Tait, have championed a system that endorses at least two hop chaining irrespective of who gets hopped, not to mention those who've tolerated the collection on family members in even more targeted surveillance, I'm not all that interested in complaints about the privacy of a 22-year old son.

Or rather, I point to it as yet another example of surveillance boosters not understanding what the policies they embrace actually look like in practice.

Which is precisely why this “doxing” was so newsworthy.

Wheeler goes into more detail on the FBI's use of contact chaining and metadata and discusses Comey's own approval of these practices during his tenure. This may explain why Comey was more impressed than angry when he was outed. As for the complaints about "outing" Comey's adult children, Wheeler points out Comey himself has thrust them into the public eye on more than one occasion, starting back when they were still young teenagers.

But beyond this there's the hypocritical nature of Wittes' attack on the journalist. Surveillance state supporters love surveillance -- except when the apparatus is controlled by people they don't like or aimed at people they do. These are ridiculous arguments to be making, especially when you actively support state-sponsored "stalking."

Filed Under: ashley feinberg, benjamin wittes, contact chaining, hops, james comey, journalism, stalking, surveillance, susan hennessey

DOJ Continues Its Push For Encryption Backdoors With Even Worse Arguments

from the let-us-save-you-from-your-security dept

Early last week, the Deputy Attorney General (Rod Rosenstein) picked up the recently-departed James Comey's Torch of Encroaching Darkness +1 and delivered one of the worst speeches against encryption ever delivered outside of the UK.

Rosenstein apparently has decided UK government officials shouldn't have a monopoly on horrendous anti-encryption arguments. Saddling up his one-trick pony, the DAG dumped out a whole lot of nonsensical words in front of a slightly more receptive audience. Speaking at the Global Cyber Security Summit in London, Rosenstein continued his crusade against encryption using counterintuitive arguments.

After name-dropping his newly-minted term -- responsible encryption™ -- Rosenstein stepped back to assess the overall cybersecurity situation. In short, it is awful. Worse, perhaps, than Rosenstein's own arguments. Between the inadvertently NSA-backed WannaCry ransomware, the Kehlios botnet, dozens of ill-mannered state actors, and everything else happening seemingly all at once, the world's computer users could obviously use all the security they can get.

Encryption is key to security. Rosenstein agrees… up to a point. He wants better security for everyone, unless those everyones are targeted by search warrants. Then they have too much encryption.

Encryption is essential. It is a foundational element of data security and authentication. It is central to the growth and flourishing of the digital economy. We in law enforcement have no desire to undermine encryption.

But “warrant-proof” encryption poses a serious problem.

Well, you can't really have both secure encryption and law enforcement-friendly encryption. Rosenstein knows this just as surely as Comey knew it. That didn't stop Comey from pretending it was all about tech company recalcitrance. The same goes for Rosenstein who, early on in his speech, plays a shitty version of Sympathy for the Tech Devil by using the phrase "competitive forces" as a stand-in for "profit seeking" when speaking about the uptick in default encryption.

The underlying message of his last speech was that American tech companies should spurn profits for helping out the government by unwrapping one end of end-to-end encryption. The same pitch is made here, softened slightly in the lede thanks to the presence of UK tech companies in the audience. The language may be less divisive, but the arguments are no less stupid this time around.

In the United States, when crime is afoot, impartial judges are responsible for balancing a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy against the interests of law enforcement. The law recognizes that legitimate law enforcement needs can outweigh personal privacy concerns. That is how we obtain search warrants for homes and court orders to require witnesses to testify.

Warrant-proof encryption overrides our ability to balance privacy and security. Our society has never had a system where evidence of criminal wrongdoing was impervious to detection by officers acting with a court-authorized warrant. But that is the world that technology companies are creating.

I'm not sure what this "system" is Rosenstein speaks about, but there has always been evidence that's eluded the grasp of law enforcement. Prior to common telephone use, people still communicated criminal plans but no one insisted citizens hold every conversation within earshot of law enforcement. Even in a digital world, evidence production isn't guaranteed, even when encryption isn't a factor.

Going on from there, the rest of speech is pretty much identical to his earlier one. In other words: really, really bad and really, really wrong.

Rosenstein believes the government should be able to place its finger on the privacy/security scale without being questioned or stymied by lowly citizens or private companies. Even if he's right about that (he isn't), he's wrong about the balance. This isn't privacy vs. security. This is security vs. insecurity. For a speech so front-loaded with tales of security breaches and malicious hacking, the back end is nothing more than bad arguments for weakened encryption -- something the government may benefit from, but will do nothing to protect people from malicious hackers or malicious governments.

All the complaints about a skewed balance are being presented by an entity that's hardly a victim. Electronic devices -- particularly cellphones -- generate an enormous amount of data that's not locked behind encryption. The government can -- without a warrant -- track your movements, either post-facto, or with some creative paperwork, in real time. Tons of other "smart" devices are generating a wealth of records only a third party and a subpoena away. And that's just the things citizens own. This says nothing about the wealth of surveillance options already deployed by the government and those waiting in the wings for the next sell off of civil liberties

It also should be noted Rosenstein is trying to make "responsible encryption" a thing. He obviously wants the word "backdoor" erased from the debate. While it's tempting to sympathize with Rosenstein's desire to take a loaded word out of the encryption debate lexicon, the one he's replacing it with is worse. As Rob Graham at Errata Security points out, the new term is loaded language itself, especially when attached to Rosenstein's bullshit metric: "measuring success in prevented crimes and saved lives."

I feel for Rosenstein, because the term "backdoor" does have a pejorative connotation, which can be considered unfair. But that's like saying the word "murder" is a pejorative term for killing people, or "torture" is a pejorative term for torture. The bad connotation exists because we don't like government surveillance. I mean, honestly calling this feature "government surveillance feature" is likewise pejorative, and likewise exactly what it is that we are talking about.

Then there's the problem with Rosenstein deploying rhetorical dodges in his discussions about encryption, which presumably include a number of government officials. Alex Gaynor, who worked for the United States Digital Service and participated in the Obama Administration's discussion of potential encryption backdoors, points out Rosenstein's abuse of his position.

Mr. Rosenstein plainly wants to reopen the "going dark" debate that began under the previously administration, spearheaded by FBI Director Jim Comey. While I disagree vehemently with him, it's a valid policy position - and I have every reason to believe him that there are investigations in which encryption does hamper the Justice Department and FBI's ability to investigate. However, he is not entitled to mislead the public in order to make that point. And make no mistake. Attempting to use the spectre of familiar computer security challenges in order to make the argument that his policy is necessary, even though his policy has nothing to do with these challenges, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

There's an endgame to Rosenstein's dishonest rhetoric. And it won't be tech companies being guilted into participating in his "responsible encryption" charade. It will be backdoors. And they will be legislated.

The Deputy Attorney General says that he is interested in "frank discussion". However, his actual remarks demonstrate he is interested in anything but -- his goal is to secure legislation akin to CALEA for your cellphone, and he doesn't care who he has to mislead to accomplish this. Mr. Deputy Attorney General, I expect better.

This is what the DOJ wants. But Rosenstein is too weak-willed to say it out loud. So he spouts this contradictory, misleading, wholly asinine garbage to whatever audience will have him. Rosenstein is obtuse enough to be dangerous. Fortunately, most legislators (so far) seem unwilling to sacrifice the security of citizens on the altar of lawful access.

Filed Under: backdoors, doj, going dark, james comey, nerd harder, responsible encryption, rod rosenstein

Trump's Pick For FBI Head Sounds A Lot Like The Guy He Fired When It Comes To Encryption

from the BACK-TO-WORK,-NERDS dept

Trump's pick to head the FBI -- former DOJ prosecutor Christopher Wray -- appeared before the Senate to answer several questions (and listen to several long-winded, self-serving statements). Wray's confirmation hearing went about as well as expected. Several senators wanted to make sure Wray's loyalty lay with the nation rather than the president and several others hoped to paint him into a Comey-bashing corner in order to belatedly justify Trump's firing of his (potential) predecessor.

Wray also spent a lot of time not talking about things he claimed he was unfamiliar with -- covering everything from presidential directives, to Donald Trump Jr.'s Russian emails, to questions about CIA human rights violations that went unnoticed/unprosecuted during his tenure in the DOJ.

Sen. Orrin Hatch -- as he did during a recent Comey hearing -- brought up the subject of encryption. Hatch claims he "agrees with Tim Cook," which places him in opposition to Sens. Feinstein and Burr. It also puts him in opposition of the possible new FBI boss, who had this to say about encryption. (h/t Politico's Eric Geller)

I think this is one of the most difficult issues facing the country. There's a balance that has to be struck between the importance of encryption, which I think we can all respect when there are so many threats to our systems, and the importance of giving law enforcement the tools that they need to keep us safe.

You can already tell where this is going. Encryption is great and all, but what's would be really great is some sort of backdoor-type thingy.

Wray continued by swiftly jumping to the other side of the argument -- at least in terms of team uniform. Certainly not in terms of how the "other side" feels about encryption and backdoors.

I don't know sitting here today as an outsider and a nominee before this committee what the solution is, but I do know that we have to find a solution. And my experience in trying to find solutions is that it's more productive for people to work together than to be pointing fingers blaming each other. And that's the approach I've tried to take to almost every problem I've tackled. And that's the approach I would want to take here in working with this committee and the private sector.

One advantage to having been in the private sector for a while is that I think I know how to talk to the private sector, and I would look for ways to try to see if I could get the private sector more on-board to understand why this issue is so important to keep us all safe.

So far, so Comey. New suit in the office, but it fits the same as the last one. Wray thinks both sides should work together but strongly hints the actual work will have to be done by the private sector. The problem, according to a guy who's worked "both sides," is the private sector needs to be more "on-board." And that indicates Wray feels the problem isn't the lack of both sides working together, but the other side not capitulating. That's a problem, and it sounds a whole lot like X more years of Comey.

Filed Under: chris wray, encryption, fbi, going dark, james comey

Trump Lawyer Threatens To Report A Former FBI Employee To The Inspector General

from the IT-GOES-ALL-THE-WAY-TO-THE-TOP dept

President Trump served up plenty of responses to former FBI director James Comey's testimony before the Senate. Some he served up himself, like his contradictory claim Comey was lying about everything, but somehow vindicating Trump at the same time. Some were served up by his legal representation, which weren't much better despite being composed by an actual lawyer and not being limited to 140 characters.

The most extraordinary thing to come out of the hearing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held Thursday may not be former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony, but the baffling, typo-riddled response to that testimony issued by Donald Trump’s personal attorney Marc Kasowitz.

Perhaps the most irresponsible aspect of Kasowitz’s press release was the suggestion that Comey might have violated the law by relaying his account of unclassified conversations with Trump to the press, via a friend. As a veritable chorus of legal scholars, including our own Steve Vladeck, have already observed, this is arrant nonsense. Indeed, it is so clearly false that it’s hard to see how a minimally competent attorney could have made it in good faith——though it will doubtless make perfectly serviceable chum for the cable news shows.

This only scratches the surface, however. The whole document is so remarkable for both its sloppiness and disingenuousness that it’s worth going through paragraph by paragraph.

...Which Julian Sanchez then does. I wholeheartedly encourage you to click through and read the entire evisceration, which shows Trump's lawyer denying claims Comey never made and conflating private conversations with classified documents.

That leads to another one of Trump's lawyer's more ridiculous assertions. It wasn't covered directly in the press release, but apparently Trump (and his lawyer) believe they can somehow punish someone Trump has already fired.

President Donald Trump's outside counsel will file a leak complaint regarding former FBI Director James Comey's leaked memos with the Department of Justice, a source close to the outside legal team tells NBC News.

Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz will file the complaint with the DOJ's Inspector General and the Senate Judiciary Committee after Comey testified Thursday that he allowed a personal friend to leak an unclassified memo of his conversations with the president to news outlets in hopes it would trigger the appointment of a special counsel.

Cue the laughter. If Kasowitz wanted this threat to have any weight, he probably should have pulled the trigger before Trump fired Comey. At best, an investigation might make it harder for Comey to return to the FBI, something I doubt Comey has any interest in doing.

Furthermore, the underlying conceit -- that's there's anything to file a formal complaint about -- is severely flawed.

“Any complaint on what Jim testified yesterday, in my opinion, would be frivolous for the following reason,” said [Lawfare Editor Benjamin] Wittes in an interview with Yahoo News Deputy Editor Daniel Klaidman. “First of all, Comey was very clear that the memo that he wrote was intentionally written in unclassified form so that it would not be bound up in classification rules. So if the claim is that he’s admitted to leaking classified information, that’s simply factually false.”

[...]

“The real issue is whether the president has a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when he fires somebody and then lies about the circumstances in which he did that, and that strikes me as a matter in which to ask that question is also to answer it,” said Wittes. “The proper answer to Mr. Kasowitz’s complaint is laughter."

As any law enforcement official can tell you, privacy expectations in shared conversations only stretch as far as the other participants are willing to take them. Even in an executive branch setting, an informal conversation does not instantly become classified or top secret or whatever it is the president wishes it was the moment it ends.

There also is no leak. Comey's personal memorializations of conversations with someone unrelated to an ongoing investigation are not the sort of thing that can be leaked -- at least not in the context being used by Trump's lawyer. Comey can hand out copies of these memos to whoever he wants, because they're his recollections, not FBI investigative documents.

If Trump is seeking someone to blame for Comey's actions, he has no one to blame but himself. It's become apparent Comey was fired for not pledging his allegiance to Trump, rather than for any genuine misdeeds related to his job as FBI director. Once Trump unceremoniously shitcanned Comey, any hope Comey might keep his conversational memos secret was lost forever. These statements by Trump's lawyer are legal grandstanding. There's nothing in them of substance. But there doesn't have to be. The assertions appeal to Trump's base, and to President Trump, that's all that really matters.

Filed Under: doj, donald trump, fbi, inspector general, james comey, leaks, mark kasowitz