Behind Servergate

Ms. Clinton's closest aid and friend is Iranian. Oh, she recently promised not to mess with email archives. You see, she had a personal account on the server holding national secrets.

Her input and friendship would be worth serious money to Iran. Why else would anyone want personal control over secret data?

Why was the impossibly stupid agreement with Iran finalized? Consider that merely by making an agreement, stupid or not, billions of dollars are to be released to Iran. Oh, yes, what is Obama's middle name?

Let us look at Ms. Clinton server company:



Daily Mail

EXCLUSIVE: Top executive at Hillary's server company was sued for 'fraud' after 'receiving proceeds' from $500m Ponzi scheme run by Backstreet Boys impresario... Platte River Networks maintained 'home brew' server Clinton used while Secretary of State

• 
  
• This week the embattled Democratic White House frontrunner handed it over to FBI after ultra-secret material found in tiny sample of emails
• 
  
• Daily Mail Online can reveal David DeCamillis of Platte River Networks was director of firm run by Lou Pearlman, who r's an $500m Ponzi scheme
• 
  
• Pearlman was jailed in 2008 and documents show that DeCamillis was sued for 'fraud' by bankruptcy trustee
• 
  
• Federal court documents show he was accused of several counts of fraud and receiving $1.5m in payments from cash traceable to duped investors
• 
  
• Disclosure raises questions what background checks - if any - were made on firm which….

Breitbart:

We’ll be hearing a lot more in the days to come about Platte River Networks, the tiny computer company in Denver, Colorado that Hillary Clinton improbably chose to manage the illicit “home-brewed” server she stashed in the basement of her vast estate in Chappaqua, New York.

The FBI reportedly visited the company’s Denver office earlier this week, but neither the Bureau nor company officials was willing to discuss what transpired during the visit. The best CBS News in Denver could do, by way of background reporting, was chat with a computer-science professor who observed that there were “questions about what security protocols were in place,” and mildly observed that Platte River Networks did not seem like “the best choice” for handling the secret personal server of the Secretary of State and her top aides, which we now know was processing classified and top-secret information, contrary to months of false denials from Hillary Clinton and her mouthpieces.

There is, no doubt, a fascinating story behind how Clinton chose this particular outfit for her server management needs. They do seem to be extraordinarily skilled at wiping hard drives without making backup copies of subpoenaed information, which would certainly have caught Clinton’s eye while she was leafing through their sales brochure.

Were employees of Platte River cleared to handle the top-secret information Clinton was handling? Did they have experience and training at securing a system that would have been one of the top targets in the world for hackers – and not just freelance troublemakers, but skilled espionage agents working for foreign governments? Were the interactions of company representatives with Clinton’s server logged as carefully as State Department IT specialists would have been? Was the company careful and disciplined enough to handle such a sensitive assignment?

A clue to the latter question is provided by a strange incident that occurred after Clinton departed as Secretary of State, resulting in a lawsuit being filed against Platte River last year. As chronicled by the UK Daily Mail, the computer company was sued by a telecommunications firm, T2 Communications, for its role in illegally accessing the master database of all U.S. telephone numbers, and using that information to improperly seize control of 390 phone lines… including some used by the White House and Defense Department.

T2 alleges that it had provided 16 phone lines to an insurance broker called Cambridge until they decided to switch providers and signed up with Windstream Communications, who worked with McLeod USA, a local exchange carrier owned by Windstream, and Platte River.

But instead of taking over the 16 lines, T2 claims that the companies asked for 390 more lines in what they called ‘intentional misappropriation’.

T2 alleges that they did this by illegally accessing the database for the Number Portability Administration Centre, the master agency which manages all US phone numbers.

The lawsuit states: ‘Under NPAC regulations, telecommunications providers are only allowed to access the NPAC data base for the exclusive purpose of routing, rating of calls, billing of calls, or performing maintenance in connection with the provision of telecommunications services.

‘Contrary to these NPAC regulations, Defendants accessed the NPAC database to find T2s 390 telephone lines as well as to obtain T2 and its customers’ proprietary network information for use in marketing T2’s lines to their existing and prospective customers.’

The lawsuit describes at length the chaos that resulted when the 390 numbers used by T2 customers suddenly stopped working.

T2 employees’ numbers also stopped working as did lines for: ‘The Department of Defense, Department of Energy; multiple medical emergency facilities as numbers used for general, pre- and post-surgical contact, and obstetric or gynecological emergencies; Federal Contract Support Desks; White House Military Operations support desks, several financial institution’s main telephone numbers, multiple Denver-based Charter schools’ main and backdoor phone numbers, a US-Based telephone number for IBM China, multiple other information technology companies and their support and internal telephone numbers, as well as T2’s main telephone numbers’.

The lawsuit states that the lines were dead for at least 21 hours and that it took the company at least 10 days to ‘unwind’ the mess and get the numbers back.

...Platte River’s role in all of this, according to the lawsuit, involved “spotting any red flags” and “resolving any inaccuracies” with the deal. The suit says Hillary’s computer company “acted negligently and breached this duty by failing to identify that the 390 additional lines were improper.”

Breitbart

The company that stored Hillary Clinton’s private email server tells Breitbart News no backup of Clinton’s server has ever been known to exist.

“No data or backups have ever been known to exist or have ever been in the possession of Platte River Networks,” a representative for the company said in an interview.

The revelation raises grave questions about Clinton’s record-keeping, considering that she used another server at her home that is no longer in anyone’s possession — let alone FBI investigator

As Breitbart News first reported, Clinton’s email account contained multiple emails that were classified when they were first sent, despite her campaign’s claim to the contrary. The State Department has already found more than 300 emails from Clinton’s inbox that could contain classified information.

Platte River Networks tells Breitbart News that it doesn’t know whether any security breaches occurred on the server prior to June 2013.

The company representative confirmed that Denver-based Platte River Networks was hired by the Clinton family in June 2013, five months after Clinton left the State Department, to secure the private email server that she used to conduct official government business. Platte River Networks was paid by the Clintons personally.

The company went to Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, New York, picked the server up from her basement, and transported it to a different company’s data center in New Jersey. The data center was selected by Platte River, and not by the Clintons or by anyone at the State Department.

---

Would you personally pay for a large, secured server used for your work?

Liar of the Senate

Paul Kengor has revisted a document released by the Russians, some time ago, then, later, resealed, imagine that, wherein Edward Kennedy wrote to the Russians requesting help in defeating Ronald Reagan. He suggested a PR strategy.

A forward:

Art III, Sec 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

US CODE:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both....

The original document, one that has never been disputed as authentic

here

Summarization from Kengor:

Special Importance

Regarding Senator Kennedy's request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov

According to the memo, Senator Kennedy was "very troubled" by U.S.-Soviet relations, which Kennedy attributed not to the murderous tyrant running the USSR but to President Reagan. The problem was Reagan's "belligerence."

This was allegedly made worse by Reagan's stubbornness. "According to Kennedy," reported Chebrikov, "the current threat is due to the President's refusal to engage any modification to his politics." That refusal, said the memo, was exacerbated by Reagan's political success, which made the president surer of his course, and more obstinate -- and, worst of all, re-electable.

On that, the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov's memo got to the thrust of Kennedy's offer: The senator was apparently clinging to hope that President Reagan's 1984 reelection bid could be thwarted. Of course, this seemed unlikely, given Reagan's undeniable popularity. So, where was the president vulnerable?

Alas, Kennedy had an answer, and suggestion, for his Soviet friends: In Chebrikov's words, "The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

Therein, Chebrikov got to the heart of the U.S. senator's offer to the USSR's general secretary: "Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan."

Of these, step one would be for Andropov to invite the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting. Said Chebrikov: "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they would be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA."

The second step, the KGB head informed Andropov, was a Kennedy strategy to help the Soviets "influence Americans." Chebrikov explained: "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA." The media savvy Massachusetts senator recommended to the Soviet dictator that he seek a "direct appeal" to the American people. And, on that, "Kennedy and his friends," explained Chebrikov, were willing to help, listing Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters (both listed by name in the memo) as good candidates for sit-down interviews with the dictator.

Kennedy concluded that the Soviets needed, in effect, some PR help, given that Reagan was good at "propaganda" (the word used in the memo). The senator wanted them to know he was more than eager to lend a hand.

Kennedy wanted the Soviets to saturate the American media during such a visit. Chebrikov said Kennedy could arrange interviews not only for the dictator but for "lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military," who "would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR."

This was apparently deemed crucial because of the dangerous threat posed not by Andropov's regime but -- in Kennedy's view -- by Ronald Reagan and his administration. It was up to the Kremlin folks to "root out the threat of nuclear war," "improve Soviet-American relations," and "define the safety for the world."

Quite contrary to the ludicrous assertions now being made about Ted Kennedy working jovially with Ronald Reagan, Kennedy, in truth, thought Reagan was a trigger-happy buffoon, and said so constantly, with vicious words of caricature and ridicule. The senator felt very differently about Yuri Andropov. As Chebrikov noted in his memo, "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y. V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

Alas, the memo concluded with a discussion of Kennedy's own presidential prospects in 1984, and a note that Kennedy "underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal."

What happened next? We will never know. None of the Kennedy admirers and court composers who serve as "journalists" bothered to ask, even with decades available to pose questions, beginning back in January 1992 when the highly reputable London Times broke the story.

In 2006, when my book was released, there was a virtual media blackout on coverage of the document, with the exception of conservative media: talk-radio, Rush Limbaugh, some websites, and mention on FoxNews by Brit Hume. Amazingly, I didn't even get calls from mainstream reporters seeking to shoot down the story. I had prepared in great detail to be grilled on national television, picturing the likes of Katie Couric needling me. I didn't need to worry.

I worked up a detailed op-ed on the document, where I even played devil's advocate by defending Kennedy, trying to get at his thinking, being as fair as possible. No major newspapers would touch it. The Boston Globe editors refused to acknowledge it or reply to my emails. The editor at the New York Times confessed to being "fascinated" by the piece but conceded that he wouldn't "be able to get it in."

One editor at a West Coast newspaper, a genuinely fair liberal, considered it carefully. We went back and forth. I was shocked to see that neither the editor nor his staff would do any investigating, not placing a single phone call to Kennedy's office. In the end, the editor rejected the piece, telling me: "I just can't believe Kennedy would do something that stupid."

Alas, here we are now, after Kennedy's death, and I'm reliving the same experience, as no one from the mainstream media has contacted me. Liberal reporters lionized Ted Kennedy in life and have begun the canonization process in death. They are liberal activists first, and journalists second.

Finally, a postscript for these liberal Democrat "journalists:" We know they don't care that Ted Kennedy did this to Ronald Reagan. Fine. Well, how about this? As the Mitrokhin Archives reveal, Senator Kennedy did something similar to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 -- his own political flesh and blood.

Does that story interest liberal reporters? No. I likewise noted that gem in 2006. I didn't get a single media inquiry.

It will be left to future generations to examine these truths. As for Senator Ted Kennedy's motivations for doing what he did with the Soviet leadership? Alas, now we can definitively say, he will never tell us. The liberal media protected him, all the way to the grave.

So, now, imagine I walked into a newspaper last year with a document from, say, Russia quoting the text of a letter from George Bush was revealed where he asked for help defeating Obama because the man will disrupt the economies of the world. Do you think the media would run with it? Even if I were just me and not a respected author?

So, why do you read the NYT?