Top cyber-sleuths are leaving the Federal Bureau of Investigation in droves. Three more departures were announced by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. Washington, D.C. bureaucrats are screaming that this couldn’t happen at a worse time. Threats “like Russia’s election interference and online foreign influence campaigns, have reached a point of alarm,” writes CNN.
David Resch, who serves as the executive assistant director in charge of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch announced his retirement. Joining him will be his assistant, Scott Smith. Smith headed up the Cyber Division. Executive Assistant Director Carl Gahttas is also stepping down as head of the National Security Branch.
Just a few weeks ago, Smith’s deputy, Howard Marshall, also left the bureau. An official spokesman for the FBI denies that any of the retirements were “related to the wider climate around the bureau.”
Instead, he blamed “a hiring boom in the late 1990’s that has led to a recent rise in senior agent retirements.”
All three men have reached retirement age, each racking up at least 20 years of service but none of them are headed for their favorite fishing hole to relax. All three are moving on to better-paying jobs in the private sector.
Resch issued a public statement, noting his confidence in the bureau and it’s Donald Trump appointed director, but glaringly didn’t mention former director James Comey or address any of the Clinton investigation controversies.
“As I retire after 28 years of government service to transition into the private sector, I have full confidence that under Director Wray’s steadfast leadership, the Bureau will remain the FBI the American people have depended on for 110 years.”
Christopher Wray is also rumored to be considering retirement.
One publicly unstated reason for the mass exodus could have something to do with the Report of the Attorney General’s Cyber Digital Task Force that FBI Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein just released.
Buried on page 122 of Rosenstein’s report appears to be the reason why Imran Awan is not being prosecuted. For employees who exceed “authorized access,” it can only be a crime if there is no legitimate reason to “access” the information.
What happens to it later cannot even be considered.
“If the CFAA can be used only against outsiders with no right at all to access computers, many insider threats – including those in the intelligence and law enforcement communities with access to extremely sensitive information – may go unpunished.”
The Awan family was given full approval to tiptoe through the Democrat Caucus Computers as well as the ones run by dozens of lawmakers. Legally, what Rosenstein wrote in his report suggests that sending all that information off to Pakistan isn’t really a crime.
If that wasn’t the reason all the top computer crime fighters are heading for the hills, another reason could be connected to the 12 Russian hackers who were just blamed for raiding the server of the Democratic National Committee.
There is plenty of evidence that these individuals tried to access computers and were occasionally successful but there isn’t anything that actually ties them to the hack attributed to Guccifer 2.0 as Democrats would like you to believe.
“You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server?” President Trump asked. “Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?”
“I’ve been asking it for months and months. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?”
These retiring investigators are fully aware that the DNC server has never been forensically analyzed in any way.
Technical research into the files that were dumped to WikiLeaks virtually proves they never went over the internet. The file transfer rate indicates they were instead transferred to a thumb drive.
More evidence suggests that the thumb drive itself may have been equipped with a Linux operating system which would allow the user to have full unfettered temporary access to the machine with virtually no record of the breach.
Bill Binney, used to be Technical Director for the NSA. He built the capability that allows the NSA “to trace each and every packet of information to see where it went.”
If the DNC had been hacked they would have precise details down to the second confirming the hack. “NSA simply does not have the event – because there wasn’t one,” he says.
“This set-up should have detected where the packets went and when they went there.” The democratic bigwigs refuse to allow access to their servers to find out for sure.
About twenty megabytes of data were transferred in 14 minutes. Not all that data shows up later, indicating that certain things were singled out for release.
Those defending the hacking position claim the gaps indicate “thinking time” where the person gathering files stopped to plan which was next to grab.
That argument is not supported by the technicians who say there are a lot of stronger signs the whole thing was grabbed in one piece then edited later.
Guccifer 2.0’s claims to be a Russian hacker and also in contact with Seth Rich are both fantasies according to Forensicator.
“The files now known as “NGP-VAN” were copied by someone with access to a system connected to the DNC internal network …this action had no bearing on the files submitted to Wikileaks and were most likely not associated with Seth Rich, and definitively not remotely “hacked” from Russia.
Do the retiring Cyber-honcho’s think Guccifer 2.0 is really Imran Awan? The world may never know.