HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Why did HRC use her unsec...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:30 PM

Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax?

Something doesn't quite add up in the story released in the WSJ Thursday about HRC's use of her unsecure Blackberry and email to authorize drone strikes. We are told that her use of private email server was just a work-around of normal information security protocols.

As we have all known for a long time, HRC didn't like using secure computer terminals and refused to use the one installed in her office. So, her aides had to print classified messages off of secure systems and send them to her hard-copy by secure fax.

So, as the WSJ revealed, when the State Department was brought into the CIA decision-making process for authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan, she sometimes had to be contacted at home to co-authorize kill orders, occasionally late at night.

The problem, we have been told, is that she couldn't (or wouldn't) use authorized secure systems. Apparently, for this reason a secure message facility, a "SCIF", with secure terminals wasn't installed in her residence, as they are in the homes of other high government officials.

However, we know that Secretary Clinton had a "secure fax" in her home. And, she knew how to operate it. If she had a secure fax, that means she probably had a secure phone, or could have have plugged one in. She certainly could operate a business desk phone. Tens of thousands of government workers use these desk phones, just like the one shown above, some of which also operate secure faxes and video conferencing. Without a keyboard.


The WSJ reported:


Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes
Source: Wall Street Journal

At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan. The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems. <snip>

Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems. The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

This implies something else. HRC's apparent violation of laws that forbids transmission of classified information over unsecure systems can be chalked up to her unwillingness to comply with normal secure information procedures. In other words, bad judgement was used to accommodate her, but not an intentional violation of law on anyone's part. Her staff, knowing she refused to sit down to a computer terminal, merely did what they could to accommodated her desires.

So, why was she using her private Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for the drone calls if she could have had a secure phone terminal to run the secure fax we know she had?

If we take this into consideration, it become even more difficult to understand why she used her Blackberry when at home for DOS calls.

These government issued secure phone systems can be used anywhere you can plug in a phone jack. Wiki tells us the "Data" version of the Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) phone:

Data - The Data STE provides remote access for voice, fax, data and video-conferencing. This model has two serial EIA-530A/EIA-232 BDI ports and allows for data transfers to multiple destinations.


Yet, she insisted on using her Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for messaging such as the Top Secret joint CIA/DOS Drone targeting communications. Why, when she could have simply used a government-issued secure phone/fax?

And, of course, she could also have used an approved, secure Department issued cell phone, as was offered her at the beginning of her term. But, she refused to use that, too. Something doesn't quite add up here.

104 replies, 5457 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 104 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax? (Original post)
leveymg Jun 2016 OP
msongs Jun 2016 #1
AllTooEasy Jun 2016 #56
tabasco Jun 2016 #61
leveymg Jun 2016 #97
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #2
NWCorona Jun 2016 #10
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #15
NWCorona Jun 2016 #19
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #30
leveymg Jun 2016 #100
DURHAM D Jun 2016 #3
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #5
DURHAM D Jun 2016 #7
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #9
NWCorona Jun 2016 #16
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #18
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #26
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #29
peace13 Jun 2016 #102
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #25
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #32
jwirr Jun 2016 #4
leveymg Jun 2016 #23
jwirr Jun 2016 #36
leveymg Jun 2016 #42
jwirr Jun 2016 #54
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #6
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #11
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #13
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #17
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #24
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #38
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #40
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #37
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #44
panader0 Jun 2016 #28
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #55
2cannan Jun 2016 #68
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #21
Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #8
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #22
TexasBushwhacker Jun 2016 #58
Post removed Jun 2016 #12
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #27
Post removed Jun 2016 #33
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #39
NWCorona Jun 2016 #43
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #46
NWCorona Jun 2016 #49
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #63
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #86
chillfactor Jun 2016 #45
MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #72
Arazi Jun 2016 #48
Duval Jun 2016 #14
panader0 Jun 2016 #20
leveymg Jun 2016 #31
onecaliberal Jun 2016 #34
NWCorona Jun 2016 #35
leveymg Jun 2016 #51
NWCorona Jun 2016 #53
chillfactor Jun 2016 #41
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #47
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #71
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #73
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #92
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #104
leveymg Jun 2016 #98
scscholar Jun 2016 #50
leveymg Jun 2016 #52
BlueStateLib Jun 2016 #66
leveymg Jun 2016 #99
bhikkhu Jun 2016 #57
RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #59
Gore1FL Jun 2016 #60
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #62
leveymg Jun 2016 #65
tabasco Jun 2016 #64
BlueStateLib Jun 2016 #67
2cannan Jun 2016 #69
ucrdem Jun 2016 #70
leveymg Jun 2016 #74
ucrdem Jun 2016 #75
NWCorona Jun 2016 #76
ucrdem Jun 2016 #77
NWCorona Jun 2016 #91
leveymg Jun 2016 #78
ucrdem Jun 2016 #79
leveymg Jun 2016 #83
ucrdem Jun 2016 #85
leveymg Jun 2016 #87
ucrdem Jun 2016 #88
leveymg Jun 2016 #89
ucrdem Jun 2016 #90
annavictorious Jun 2016 #80
leveymg Jun 2016 #81
itsrobert Jun 2016 #94
leveymg Jun 2016 #96
MFM008 Jun 2016 #82
leveymg Jun 2016 #84
itsrobert Jun 2016 #93
leveymg Jun 2016 #95
stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #101
leveymg Jun 2016 #103

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:32 PM

1. implies, apparent, could have, refused. yep something doesnt quite add up. charges with NO proof nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM

56. The Sec. of State CANNOT authorize drone strikes!!!

Only the military chain of command can authorize or co-authorize any military action. Neither the SOS or any ambassador or diplomat can authorize or co-authorize military action.

How do DUers or any liberal fall for this shit?! The SOS can receive info regarding planned military action. Her input may have been requested as a professional courtesy/heads-up. Obama may have replied "Thank you for your input, now go fuck off!". Hillary may have (illegally) forwarded such information over an insecure link, but the authoization charge is complete bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllTooEasy (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:00 PM

61. Newsflash.....

 

the CIA is not part of the military.

Even if it were, the Commander in Chief can delegate authority to approve military action to anybody he pleases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllTooEasy (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:00 AM

97. Under Sec. Clinton, State became a drone targeting decision-maker. DOS also became a top spy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29spy.html

[div class="excerpt"]U.S. Expands Role of Diplomats in Spying

By MARK MAZZETTINOV. 28, 2010
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page


WASHINGTON — The United States has expanded the role of American diplomats in collecting intelligence overseas and at the United Nations, ordering State Department personnel to gather the credit card and frequent-flier numbers, work schedules and other personal information of foreign dignitaries.

Revealed in classified State Department cables, the directives, going back to 2008, appear to blur the traditional boundaries between statesmen and spies.

The cables give a laundry list of instructions for how State Department employees can fulfill the demands of a “National Humint Collection Directive.” (“Humint” is spy-world jargon for human intelligence collection.) One cable asks officers overseas to gather information about “office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cellphones, pagers and faxes,” as well as “internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent-flier account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:34 PM

2. To get the real answer...

... you must re-read Animal Farm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:44 PM

10. "4 legs good 2 legs better"

Boxers death was the hardest part when I was a kid reading that book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:47 PM

15. Yessss...

I remember that.

Art imitates life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:49 PM

19. Orwell was ahead of his time!

Just look at 1984.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM

30. That is definitely playing out...

... right in front of all the hustings!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:16 AM

100. "Some animals are more equal than others."

That line from a pig stands out in my memory as capturing the way society actually works. Have read a lot of Orwell since. His Collected Works is a treasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:37 PM

3. I guess you have failed to notice that there is something truly

more important going on today?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:39 PM

5. Maybe the OP can think about more than one thing a day. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:40 PM

7. Constant repeat of the same drivel isn't thinking. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:43 PM

9. Shouldn't you be focussing all of your attention on the "truly more important going on today?"

Or are you being a hypocrite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:47 PM

16. This!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:48 PM

18. !!!



Oooh... Don't add any confusion to the issue!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:52 PM

26. Why is she a hypocrite?

She didn't start the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM

29. No she replied to the thread as being too unimportant to exist and then kept posting in it

It isn't really that hard to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:30 AM

102. If a person is willing to vote for a candidate that has questionable practices.....

 

.....where peace is concerned it shouldn't bother them what others talk about. This constant war, drone killing and global war does nothing but feed attacks like that in Orlando. Clinton has enemies around the globe and we will all pay if we look the other way and let her be selected. As a wise child once said.....worry about yourself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:51 PM

25. It shows what some folks priorities are...

Over fifty of our glbtq brothers and sisters were murdered and another fifty were injured and some folks would rather talk about e-mails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:55 PM

32. Some people can think about more than one thing in a day.

I notice you keep posting in this thread too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:39 PM

4. Now if she is like my sister the answer would be simple. She

never learned to use a computer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:50 PM

23. Even your sister can use a land phone? Yes? We know Hillary uses her fax.

That's the point of this post. Again, the facts undercuts the narrative that it's all a big misunderstanding about a technological inept. That narrative we're being fed doesn't conform with the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:57 PM

36. Yes my sis can and does use a land phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:59 PM

42. Then, she could send and receive classified information at home over a gov't issued phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:24 PM

54. Point taken. And I also would like to know why Hillary did

not use a safe phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:40 PM

6. Jury Results

On Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512179294

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Quit carrying right wing water for them. DU is not the place for right wing points of view. INappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:39 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Dear Leader" rules do not apply until later this week.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post doesn't appear to be regurgitated content and cites a mainstream source. While Hillary's known opposition to the Rule of Law is uncomfortable, that doesn't make it RW by any definition I'm aware of.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: From a right wing source and is opposition research. This is the sort of thing used on Republican websites and designed to harm our Democratic candidate.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:45 PM

11. You squeaked by this time. Have to agree with #7

What is the purpose of this thread? To do damage to our Dem. candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kerry-is-my-prez (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:46 PM

13. It's more than our team vs theirs.

I voted to leave it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:48 PM

17. Please see Post 12. Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:50 PM

24. I saw it. You called out a DUer. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:57 PM

38. Where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:58 PM

40. The one you directed me to. Please quit shitting on DU. Shitting on DU makes DU suck. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:57 PM

37. I'm tired of having this board look like a right wing website. I won't say it looks like Free Repub.

because they normally are incapable of writing more than 1 sentence that is grammatically correct......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kerry-is-my-prez (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:59 PM

44. As I replied in post 13...

It's more than our team vs theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kerry-is-my-prez (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM

28. So the WSJ is right wing too?

I would have thought the Wall Street Journal would be a favorite of the HRC crowd.
I'm having trouble finding sources that will be acceptable to the new DU order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:27 PM

55. You mean the Rupert Murdoch- owned newspaper that is known to be ultra conservative?

I am a New York Times/Boston Globe reading Clinton supporter who has been an ACLU- carrying Liberal for many years. I had always followed and supported Sanders but did not vote for him because I didnt believe he could win nor would he be able to get the support behind him to be effective. I agree with his ideas/issues but NOT his recent actions. As a long-time feminist, I also would like to see a female president instead of another white male.

Don't put all HRC supporters in the same category and stereotype us.

Just as the HRC supporters shouldn't assume that all Sanders supporters are young white males or college kids or insult them or Sanders by saying that he is racist/sexist - which I do not believe.

I doubt there are many Clinton people who read and agree with the WSJ. Apparently there are Sanders supporters who do read the WSJ, however, and are confident enough in it to post articles from it on a message board. Pretty ironic, isn't it???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kerry-is-my-prez (Reply #55)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:05 PM

68. That would be the same Murdoch who held a fundraiser for Hillary?


And note, the source is CBS News.

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-loves-hillary-clinton/

To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:49 PM

21. Priceless!!!

Juror #1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:41 PM

8. I really don't care why.

 

We have this idiotic dangerous asshole Mussolini wannabe demanding congratulations over the slaughter of 50 people in Orlando running against her.

How about we focus on that instead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:50 PM

22. Who is the "she" demanding congratulations???

Very confusing post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kerry-is-my-prez (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:32 PM

58. I think Warren is speaking of Trump n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:52 PM

27. I'm pretty sure there are a few more people excited...

They must have higher IQ's than those cheerleaders in the GIF you posted.

Irony! It presents itself!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #27)


Response to Post removed (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:57 PM

39. You are really being uncivil on this thread.

Please behave like an adult. Not behaving like an adult makes DU suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:59 PM

43. It's hard for some to let go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #43)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:02 PM

46. It's weird that people think the declared presumptive Dem nominee is so fragile

that criticism is not allowed.

It's also sad that users here are so anxious to divide the community.

I don't understand the thought process in either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:11 PM

49. I have a feeling that the purge will be regretted in due time.

I'll admit that I'm a new member and only join after my motorcycle accident and I had way to much free time on my hands. I did lurk here for years though.

One of the reasons I joined is because it is moderating very good at deleting troll posts and accounts so this move is surprising. Especially considering people are so quick to use the block function.

And yes the poster in question is on a good one right now lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #49)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:06 PM

63. I've been around since 2001.

I don't intend to break the new rules, but I imagine I'll be at jackpineradicals.org more than here if it gets as stupid here as some predict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:00 PM

86. This is one that posted yesterday "let bygones be bygones"

I replied that it could not happen because poster could not resist posting their hateful vitriol. Then I called them a hateful person and got a hide.


But, like I said- they can not resist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:00 PM

45. I believe this post was on target....

loved it myself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:17 PM

72. Gee... I go away for a little while and I'm not even missed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:04 PM

48. This shit doesn't help one bit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:49 PM

20. It seems to me that her refusal to use secure systems implies intent.

If it was purposeful, it was intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:54 PM

31. Legally, one doesn't have to show more than "gross negligence." That fits the facts here.

We're being generous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:55 PM

34. ^^^That^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:55 PM

35. I think it has something to do with the rolling passwords.

They can't be written down, saved, shared and change frequently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:15 PM

51. That's why one hires aides who have a better memory than the boss.

And then give them security clearances and access to systems. Or, like everyone else, chalk your passwords on a stop sign on your route into work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:21 PM

53. Sharing a password would be an immediate offense but I do wonder in her case.

if there is any loopholes in aides knowing passwords. That would be insane tho.

I love the chalk reference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:59 PM

41. 3 more days...

and this garbage will be no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:03 PM

47. Echo Chambers are AWESOME! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #47)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:53 PM

71. If you want to post RW garbage feel free to create a Free Republic account.

This doesn't belong on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #71)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:31 PM

73. Demonstrate the Bias.

Please don't violate TOS by telling long-time users of this system to go to leave and go to Free Republic. Doing so makes DU suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:56 PM

92. You need me to demonstrate the bias for you of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal? Really?

The WSJ opinion section was always a notorious cesspool of wingnut garbage, but once Murdoch bought the paper the RW bias rapidly spread into the "news" portion and turned it into little more than a print version of Fox News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #92)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 10:33 AM

104. I was hoping you'd demonstrate the bias of the article in question, actually nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:08 AM

98. Thanks for the threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:11 PM

50. Calling it unsecure is a judgement call, and...

 

do you have the technical expertise to make that call? I would guess not, and Hillary hired experts to help her come to the decision that that secure device was secure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:19 PM

52. Her "experts" and lawyers apparently weren't expert.

Apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:53 PM

66. The OpenNet network that state.gov uses was unsecure for classified information

Her server was secure but not to the specifications of a classified workstation. A classified workstation connected to ClassNet secure network is the only authorized way to access and view classified information

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #66)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:11 AM

99. These TS/SAP drone kill communications should have been sent over the Joint Intel secure system.

Even the SIPR (State Dept secure system) is rated only up to Secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:15 PM

57. Blackberry phones have survived so long because of their superior security

A relative of mine worked for a big corporation in the Bay area, and complained sometimes about having to use an outdated Blackberry; the reason being it had encryption built into the software and it was the only phone system the company could be sure was secure. This was about 2011.

Just saying...I don't know anything more on the issue, as it has always seemed to be nonsense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:35 PM

59. Is Clintonemail.com her address or is this an attack brand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogueTrooper (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:56 PM

60. Her email from the context of the OP and an attempt to go there in a web browser to see. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:02 PM

62. Ancient Alien theorists believe ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #62)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:53 PM

65. You have nothing to say.

But, thanks for kicking the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:16 PM

64. It appears she wanted a communications system that was outside of public purview

 

Invisible to FOIA laws that deal with all government communications.

For me, this is the most troublesome aspect of the entire email controversy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:02 PM

67. How is that done considering that all her emails were sent to or received from a state.gov account

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:08 PM

69. Actually many of her staff used personal email accounts and some of them even used clintonemail.com

ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:15 PM

70. When was the last time you sent a fax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #70)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:57 PM

74. About a month ago.

A lot of govt agencies and banks are afraid of email. Maybe, not without reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #74)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:05 PM

75. There's this new gadget called a smartphone

that the FBI supposedly couldn't crack until a couple of months ago. Faxes have been around since the last millennium. Intuitively a smartphone is more private and secure and a fax machine is a crappy pain in the ass so there's the answer to your question. Hillary didn't train in IT or the security apparatus so while secure faxes may well be very secure it takes a leap of faith to accept that they're more secure than a smartphone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #75)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:09 PM

76. I think that whole apple thing was about setting precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #76)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:12 PM

77. Indeed but if that was a load of crap it's hard to take the present hoo-ha seriously. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #77)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:39 PM

91. That angle I have no problem with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #75)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:19 PM

78. During the first week, HRC demanded a half dozen clones of Obama's phone.

NSA refused to give them to her, and told her to stop using her unsecure Blackberry. She refused the standard issue State Dept smart phone offered. Instead, she talked to her lawyer, Cheryl Mills. Within days she had switched from an AT&T email account on her handheld to Clintonemail.com. That's how this all started. She wasn't special enough to get the President's phone, so she set up her very own private communications network and intelligence service. All her own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #78)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:23 PM

79. That may be so but she was the US Secretary of State running her department legally.

Now she isn't. And that's about all there is to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #79)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:48 PM

83. The Dept's communications ceased to be legal within a week

When she received her first official business email over Clintonemail.com. Again, that was Cheryl Mills about the NSA security officer refusing Obama clone phones. It became criminal when the first classified information was sent over the server and continued to operated as an ongoing criminal enterprise until the last of 2,200 classified items was sent four years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #83)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:55 PM

85. "ongoing criminal enterprise" is so OTT it shows the whole thing for what it is, a nothing burger.

It's like the scandal over whether stamps used to answer letters about Socks the Cat were paid by the Clintons personally. Who the hell cares.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #85)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:03 PM

87. I knew one of the ladies who wrote those letters.

She said unflattering things about the Clintons that I managed to ignore at the time. I too never took any of this seriously until Hillary and David Petraeus blew up the Mideast. Then, I started paying attention to the details. So has the NSA, CIA and the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #87)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:08 PM

88. Hillary didn't blow up the ME, that's foolish. She may have supported some soft power ops

in Egypt and Syria but those were never our wars anyway. Who has their eye on the Suez canal for example? And who was drooling over all that gas in Libya? And so on. And Iraq sure as heck wasn't Hillary's doing. A lot of nice, smart people say a lot of unflattering things about the Clintons, and I believed some of them for a time, but it turns out they were mostly wrong. It happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #88)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:14 PM

89. Tell us how you were wrong about her before?

This should be interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #89)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:24 PM

90. Not Hill, Bill. For years I believed the Nation line that Bill sold Dems down the river

with NAFTA and welfare reform. The NAFTA betrayal was first explained to me by my BIL and it struck me as a revelation especially as I'd never considered BIL who is a great guy a Clinton supporter. Well he isn't. He voted for Cruz in the last primary or so I hear as I haven't actually seen him since Christmas. But politics aside he really is a great guy. Anyway I now think Bill took a lot of shit that wasn't deserved on NAFTA and welfare reform mainly because he did what Obama does namely take inevitable RW legislation and neutralize it, and I also suspect that Nation and the like are largely VRWC-controlled ratfuck operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:23 PM

80. Her server was secure and the WSJ article does not say what you claim it says.

 

The server was installed in 2002 for use by a former president and his family on the recommendation and under the supervision of the Secret Service following the 9/11 attacks. (Secret Service was given international cyber security oversight following the attack.)

You are very, very mistaken about what the WSJ actually says in its story. Here's one of the money quotes:
"The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said."

You can read the entire WSJ story at this linkif you scroll down to the June 10 post.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:39 PM

81. The server was intruded several times in the first few months after it was taken over

for Clintonemail.com. The system had to be shut down temporarily while Bill's old body man tried to figure out how to reset it after it was attacked. Finally, they bought another server, but that was set up uncorrectly without an encryption certificate.

For at least four months it was stark naked to even the most primitive hacks. Layer on, after it was moved through several uncertified IPS providers, someone ran a proper diagnostic that showed it had been running a redirect back to Beijing. And then there was the Romanian hacker and his Russian clients.

Secure? That is funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #81)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:15 PM

94. And 100's of thousands of federal and military personnel private data was compromised off

federal/DOD servers over the last few years.

How secure do you think the federal servers are? Many operating on Windows 2000 and earlier systems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Reply #94)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:50 AM

96. And do you know what the primary cause of successful breaches are?

http://www.governmentcontractinsider.com/pentagons-dc3i-memo-acknowledges-thousands-of-cyber-breaches-that-compromised-dod-systems-and-commits-to-new-cyber-culture/

What are the causes of all of the cyber attacks on DoD?

The DC3I Memo also reveals the root cause of these attacks. The answer is no surprise. It’s human error. According to DoD: “roughly 80 percent of incidents in the cyber domain can be traced to three factors: poor user practices, poor network and data management practices, and poor implementation of network architecture.” The memo recognizes that “technical upgrades and cyber organizational changes” can only do so much. For DoD, the real challenge comes from “human error by both IT professionals and the great number of everyday DoD users.” Based on DoD’s figures, 80,000 of the daily cyber attacks against DoD are caused by human error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:40 PM

82. Im sorry but WSJ is just another

Rupert Murdoch rag
along with everything he owns.
Dont trust a word out of it, it joins Brietbart
and WND .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #82)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:51 PM

84. If you actually read the OP, you'd learn that I'm questioning the WSJ piece

But, you didn't bother, did you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:07 PM

93. Sometimes, people need an answer right away

There are some situations where the opportunity exist, but not the time.

Do you know, for a fact, the situation? Hillary was a very busy Secretary of State. She was constantly flying (yes, they have secure means on the Sec State plane). She attended many social state department and White House events all over the country and internationally. Do you expect her to be beside her STU phone 24/7? Part of the duties of Sec State is to meet people, and usually not in an office setting.

For example, she gets a phone call at 8pm at night. She's at a gathering in New York City away from secure means. She excuses herself, gets to a private room. Time is of the essence, the caller needs an answer in a brief window of opportunity. She's most likely on a conference call with her staff, the CIA, and Sec Def. There is no "let me travel 15 minutes to a secure line and get back to you" Chances are the drone is in the air, target is fixed, and ready to fire. Hillary wouldn't be the person making the final decision anyhow, but she would have a recommendation to make. Being on an unsecure line probably would not compromise the mission at all, because of the urgency in the decision.

But neither you are me know the exact details. You go on believing you know better than anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Reply #93)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 08:42 AM

95. You haven't read the article, either. It's a remote. You plug in the phone anywhere there's a jack.

There is no such thing, as a practical matter, as being away from secure communications. The WSJ article is cover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:29 AM

101. tick tock..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stonecutter357 (Reply #101)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 09:41 AM

103. "Drip, drip"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread