How the FBI tracked down Pentagon leak suspect

How the FBI tracked down Pentagon leak suspect

Now, I want to ask that you note the forum in which I placed this OP. I'm hoping you will appreciate what I think needs to be considered along with the face value of the source. There could have been many sources... they are all drafted from the same data sheet given to most every source you'll see. Making source selection, a virtually moot, unless you want a particular garbage activist journalism as 'flavor' for your choice of information consumption.

A criminal complaint obtained by Fox News is detailing how the FBI traced Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira to a series of sensitive document leaks that have threatened to upend the U.S. government's relations with allies worldwide.

Now you who are familiar with me just know I'm going to unpack that...

"A criminal complaint" is a particularly vague description for such an "important" matter... is the FBI charging him? Outside the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice?) Military personnel and the 'political' police... nu uh. The name "Federal" in the Federal Bureau of Investigations does not negate the principle of military justice anymore than the word "federal' makes the Federal Reserve Bank a government entity.

Regardless of the 'marketing' the FBI enjoin to convey their "infallibility' and 'scope of authority' they cannot simply usurp the military justice system.

And then there is "the FBI traced"... It's almost as if we are to use "Hollywood" thought... The intrepid FBI, mobilizing their resources to "track down" the source of the leak... agents interfacing... investigatory processes evoked... if anyone can, they will save the day and answer all our questions, as they 'get to the bottom of this.'

If you suspect I lean towards coloring this as potential (political) 'theater,' you are likely correct.

For those interested, it can be quite easily "corrected." Members of the United States military services belong to branches of service ... Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force... et al... Each of those forces exists separately ... not in theory... but in practice. The nature of military service, the operations in which they take part, to order of lifestyle members live makes for a very specialized administration... including criminal justice.

Military personnel are subject to military law. This case is no exception...

In the case of this 'leak' we are dealing with a US Air Force Airman First Class (A1C) ... an E3... the training he underwent included more than his 'career path' ... it always does. There is no way any servicemen could casually think they are going to "avoid" the military justice system. While my direct experience in the field is many decades past, and thing certainly change, some things do not... and wouldn't without great exposure to deliberation. The UCMJ is one of those things.

So where was the Office of Special Investigations (OSI,) which is an Air Force branch of investigative service in these matters... This is their bailiwick. What is the Pentagon's own infrastructural response to this? Why are they letting the FBI engage in legal proceedings, or better yet, why is the FBI basely bypassing the military criminal justice system, failing to honor its purpose and function?

Teixeira, 21, did not enter a plea during an initial appearance in federal court in Boston Friday after being charged with unauthorized retention and transmission of national defense information and unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

There are a number of charges we don't see here. Charges relating to the UCMJ... Will they not exists? Are they somehow magically irrelevant? Or is this a planned reaction... one of those many which seem to be aimed at creating a perception... one of those the FBI seems to engage in everywhere, all the time.

But notice this one line...

The postings from that individual, later identified to be Teixeira, appeared on a group aimed at discussing "geopolitical affairs and current and historical wars," according to the person.

Well, if that doesn't send a shiver down your spine it might be because you fail to 'connect' the reality that the exact same 'characterization' applies to many members of ATS. Could this be the continued construction of a "perception?" I dare say, yes. Soon the memery will begin... "people who talk about these things are the people who "leak" classified information." "You know, one of those faux intellectuals on conspiracy websites...." Well, I guess we'll have to let that go, it's not like there was anything ever spoken of in terms of conspiracy theory that didn't include an element of social rejection.

Something interesting I did notice...

One of the documents, prosecutors say, "described the status of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, including troop movements, on a particular date" – information that is "based on sensitive U.S. intelligence, gathered through classified sources and methods, and contains national defense information."

In my days, admittedly long ago, "gathered through classified sources and methods" denotes "special intelligence" which demands more than a simple "Top Secret" designation... it requires control via specialized channels of distribution, often even a Top Secret "codeword" designation. If those sources and means are not scrubbed from a synthesis report (such as this was) it cannot "shed" that designation... and it's distribution is HIGHLY limited... if they do scrub the sources, it can be designated Top Secret, and can be distributed more widely...

But to the state-level national guard? That is suspect. Pentagon reports of this nature are for "clients" of theirs, other intelligence agencies, certain fusion service groups, executive and legislature bodies, or military consumers who are directly involved in operations with a critical need for the information...

(MORE)

Nowadays with the blossoming of the contractor agencies (many, if not most, of the "Agencies" the government employs,) There are many new "clients/consumers' full of political-appointee controlled businesses... all dabbling in 'classified' material... So I understand that nearly everyone could, if they put their mind to it, find and abuse some 'classified' information or other... but this is a bit different, in that the A1C didn't just casually repeat something he shouldn't have, he didn't just 'copy/paste' something that should not have been 'copy/paste'able.

The user said he engaged in conversations with Teixeira and at one point, the young man "explained that he had become concerned that he may be discovered making the transcriptions of text in the workplace, so he began taking the documents to his residence and photographing them."

Presumably the FBI itself has done the interviewing, the analysis, and the reporting of this case... and my question remains... did the OSI just 'take the day off?' I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened some 'decision-maker' could have bowed out to the FBI ... but I sure would like to hear the reasoning behind that decision.... I can't imagine ANYONE in the military service I remember saying ... "Oh yeah... let the FBI do it... I trust them completely to handle a military criminal investigation... involving military intelligence!"

Just prior to his arrest, on April 6, Teixeira "used his government computer to search classified intelligence reporting for the word ‘leak,’" the complaint also said.

"Accordingly, there is reason to believe that Teixeira was searching for classified reporting regarding the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment of the identity of the individual who transmitted classified national defense information," it added.

Was that the genius method by which they determined he "might be" the leaker? Not an analysis of the communications channels by which he, specifically, accessed the data back in 2022... Not his chain of command (who is responsible for his conduct), Not the discoverer of the "breach?"

And then there is this little morale boosting sentiment...

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday said, "The Department of Defense is leading an important effort now to evaluate and review the national security implications and most important, to conduct a review of the methods of access, accountability and control procedures that the Department has so that something like this can never happen again."

AG Garland... what the HELL are you doing in this article? Speaking on this topic? Are YOU in charge of military intelligence? Why are YOU speaking for the Department of Defense... Are you somehow to be the moral beneficiary of this investigation... implicitly assumed that the DoD is "under your purview?" Are you supposed to be the nation's "Johnny on the Spot?"

Also what the hell is up with "...so that something like this can never happen again...?"

It was not supposed to be able to happen in the first place. Me thinks the infiltration of politics and her attendant theater have almost completely overtaken the military's capabilities to function without the political gamesmanship and theater of media... or are they quietly doing what they should, and we are not hearing anything about it at all?

a reply to: Maxmars

How did they find him?

The IT guy ran a report to see who had accessed the folders / documents.

Case solved.

a reply to: infolurker

You get it. But that doesn't "sound as good."

What the FBI is doing in this, other than PR, is truly my question.

You are not exactly correct in your assumption...He can be charged by the FBI under Federal law OR under UCMJ. They can coordinate to see which court will prosecute the case, or they can BOTH prosecute the case. In essence, while serving in the military, it is possible for a service member to be tried and sentenced by two courts for the same crime and face the same/separate charges.

a reply to: Maxmars
He did not commit a crime known to the FBI to be something that was committed strictly by a member of the military. Why would JAG have investigated this? This was strictly under the jurisdiction of the FBI and STILL is. But the accused may still face UCMJ after the feds are dome with him.

a reply to: odd1out

I agree that it could have been either/or... My main contention is that 'prosecutability' in this case is more about theater for the FBI's sake than justice. I can't imagine a single command-level decider simply forgoing the UCMJ to allow this game show to take place.

Where as they could 'split' the charges and dole them out... it is not because justice will be better served, it's because the FBI needs all the good press it can find. And this case appears astoundingly simple... and the crime especially stupid... someone risking court-martial to impress his e-friends.

Also, intelligence communications management is in question here... I would have thought there would be more pride at stake for the military... at least more than the FBI being 'front-man' ... don't they have other 'grand corruption' matters to focus on?

I might suspect that we would find, after investigations, that someone (military? contractor? political appointee?) was 'casual' about allowing this document to circulate as it did... or maybe even deliberate... but that would just be a suspicion... not necessarily a fact.

But thanks for clarifying that.

a reply to: odd1out

I won't speak to who knew what and when. I don't know, and might never.

I know that much has changed in the world, and that includes the culture of the military and it's relationship with the political law enforcement branch. But I simply find it mystifying that this case is being brought by the FBI... At the very least it obliterates the need for military justice.

When someone in my command was charged with any crime the JAG was instantly involved... there wasn't a matter of "but the FBI says..." granted that was long ago and things may have changed while I was otherwise distracted by life...

a reply to: Maxmars

I don't disagree with any of what say here. I am not a fan of our three letter agency's past record or performance either.
As always, the FBI only solves anything when other people solve it for them; usually snitches or outright entrapment. In this case, I think members of the suspects forum got out in front of it for the kid's sake, trying to paint him as an attention whore, which I am inclined to believe is all that he is. My question is why this level of intel was in any way available to a TS/SCI clearance...seems a bit fishy.

Well Garland needs good press coverage even more than the FBI does at this point. Still smells off, the FBI is a tad out of its jurisdiction with the suspect being in the military. Question I have is who does the leg work for approval for the clearances? I'd think some of our questions could be answered by that question.

a reply to: Maxmars
I was in the army in the 80's. I don't see anything unusual about this. I witnessed someone that committed a crime off base, prosecuted in a civilian court with the expectation that he was facing a courts-martial as soon as he was released from prison. A service member falls under the jurisdiction of the law where the crime was committed. Unless it is committed on a military installation or during the engagement of military duties which then falls strictly into the hands of JAG. A civilian law agency can very well turn a soldier over to the UCMJ, but they aren't obligated to do so.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: infolurker

You get it. But that doesn't "sound as good."

What the FBI is doing in this, other than PR, is truly my question.

It’s amazing how they were always “closing in on him” well before the massacre or espionage, but they never quite get there until days or weeks or months after it happened. And nobody cares. They are good to go, never getting anything right except for political attacks and dirty tricks.

originally posted by: odd1out
a reply to: Maxmars

...... My question is why this level of intel was in any way available to a TS/SCI clearance...seems a bit fishy.

Serious question: what level of clearance do you think someone should have to get access to this information?

a reply to: Maxmars

Go ahead and give yourself and applause.


This method we enjoy here on ATS, a battle of ideas to discover truth is still even though archaic, is still the best way. And to think that it can remain in this current socio-political environment is folly.

Also make no mistake that the MSM were COMPLICIT in the endevour to sus out the leaker and track them down. Complete with helicopter parades and camera surveillance.

What more? We all have extensive post histories. Histories that can be twisted and cherry picked to produce a "truth."

We are small, we dont have a voice or power. But boy are we a great template to slice through the BS that would only serve as a cudgel to exactly what we are living through.

originally posted by: hangedman13
... Question I have is who does the leg work for approval for the clearances? I'd think some of our questions could be answered by that question.

It used to be that the FBI was involved in many (if not most) TS/SCI background investigations, but my understanding of the current practice is that involves much more 'outside' contracting now than before. I suppose we might not be told of that aspect of this case... either way.

Jurisdictions notwithstanding, military people know they can, and probably will, be charged, if they commit a crime, by the military. The UCMJ is not a "side thing." When I was trained, it was THE thing. The civilian authorities' justice system was the "side thing."

a reply to: JinMI

Thank you for saying so.

We may not have the means to speak "to" power... but I'll be damned if I refrain from speaking "of" power.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: JinMI

Thank you for saying so.

We may not have the means to speak "to" power... but I'll be damned if I refrain from speaking "of" power.

For now, and hopefully for a long healthy future.


But just 1 bad apple. Just one traceroute through this IP. One fictional article in the media....

I think you get the point

a reply to: Maxmars

AG Garland... what the HELL are you doing here?

Perhaps it was another one of those honeypot operations that got out of control ...


Apparently the documents originally appeared on Thug Shaker Central

The name of the Thug Shaker server frequently changed, sometimes to that of a racial slur, and had around 20 active users making up a tight-knit community ... Posts and channel listings show that the server’s users were interested in video games, music, Orthodox Christianity, and fans of a popular gun enthusiast on YouTube .... its users had a staunchly conservative stance on several issues.... Racial slurs and racist memes were shared widely.

The Thug Shaker Central server was originally named after its original founder... Server administrator duties then passed through various users before a new member took on the responsibility ....

Vakhi did not want to name this person but said they were the original source of the leaked documents.

a reply to: 1947boomer
Well, I guess I was misinformed; I always thought there were higher levels than this...? After doing some reading, you would think someone that basically just joined the military would start off with a confidential clearance and then have to show, over time, that they should be moved up to the level.

Now that's out of the way maybe they can spend a little time on the Epstein client list or the Jan 6 pipe bomb guy.