EXCLUSIVE: HILLARY CLINTON AND HER STAFF MAY HAVE COMPROMISED COUNTERTERRORISM OPS WITH ‘SLOPPY’ COM

[Bob41213]

This doesn't sound good... Almost like someone was reading her emails or listening to her phone calls because she wasn't using secure methods....


http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-terrorism-sloppy-communications-463605

Updated | A retired senior State Department military adviser claims that Hillary Clinton’s “sloppy communications with her senior staff” when she was secretary of state may have compromised at least two counterterrorism operations.

Bill Johnson, who was the State Department’s political adviser to the special operations section of the U.S. Pacific Command, or PACOM, in 2010 and 2011, says secret plans to eliminate the leader of a Filipino Islamist separatist group and intercept Chinese-made weapons components being smuggled into Iraq were repeatedly foiled.

Johnson says he and his team eliminated the possibility of other security leaks before settling on the unprotected telephone calls of the secretary of state and her aides as the likely source—though he quickly adds they have “no proof.”

“I had several missions that went inexplicably wrong, with the targets one step ahead of us,” Johnson tells Newsweek in an exclusive interview.

....

[procon]

1. You skipped the part that says this was about phone call and there is "no proof".

Johnson says he and his team eliminated the possibility of other security leaks before settling on the unprotected telephone calls of the secretary of state and her aides as the likely source—though he quickly adds they have “no proof.”

Bad show. The only that is "sloppy" here is the journalism, and the OP who cherry picked the parts that painted the picture he wanted... and got got at it.

[TimPlo]

2. Did you even read the OP?

"Johnson says he and his team eliminated the possibility of other security leaks before settling on the unprotected telephone calls of the secretary of state and her aides as the likely source—though he quickly adds they have “no proof.” "

It is there in his post word for word what you typed?

[Bob41213]

4. I even bolded it to make that clear.

You can read the rest of his article and draw your own conclusions.

Edit: and the only cherry picking I did was counting the first 4 paragraphs.

[TimPlo]

7. Yea

I saw the bold too. Did the other poster just want to post some fake title and make a straw-man argument? I don't even wrap my mind around how people can be so blinded they can't even read a simple post of and not even read the dam thing.

[procon]

10. I read that the subject of the article admits "they have “no proof.”

Everything after that amounts to nothing more that unfounded hearsay, conspiracy theories and idle gossip. Without proof, this is nothing more than a fiction story.

[YouDig]

3. I guess you think the caps lock will prevent people from reading the "no proof" part.

[arikara]

6. It was copy pasted from the title on the article

I saw another post like this where people were jumping all over the OP. Click the link and check it out before you jump all over them please.

[cali]

5. He has no evidence. It's bullshit without it.

[randome]

8. Until you bother to research what "unprotected phone calls" means, you're whistling in the dark.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dem2]

9. Trash all caps

No all caps post has ever not been stupid.

[dana_b]

11. gulp. If the FBI finds that proof...

well, it will make today look like a good day for the former Secretary.

[cliffordu]

12. Gosh, I wonder if anyone was sending her

Emails about these things?

Emails 'lost' now?