Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax? [View all]
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 Clintons 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 sidegovernment slang for a computer system for unclassified mattersas 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. Clintons 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. Clintons 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. Clintons personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and arent 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
Source: Wall Street Journal
At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clintons 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 sidegovernment slang for a computer system for unclassified mattersas 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. Clintons 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. Clintons 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. Clintons personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and arent 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.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
104 replies, 8819 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (39)
ReplyReply to this post
104 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax? [View all]
leveymg
Jun 2016
OP
implies, apparent, could have, refused. yep something doesnt quite add up. charges with NO proof nt
msongs
Jun 2016
#1
Under Sec. Clinton, State became a drone targeting decision-maker. DOS also became a top spy
leveymg
Jun 2016
#97
Shouldn't you be focussing all of your attention on the "truly more important going on today?"
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#9
No she replied to the thread as being too unimportant to exist and then kept posting in it
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#29
If a person is willing to vote for a candidate that has questionable practices.....
peace13
Jun 2016
#102
Then, she could send and receive classified information at home over a gov't issued phone.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#42
The one you directed me to. Please quit shitting on DU. Shitting on DU makes DU suck. nt
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#40
I'm tired of having this board look like a right wing website. I won't say it looks like Free Repub.
kerry-is-my-prez
Jun 2016
#37
You mean the Rupert Murdoch- owned newspaper that is known to be ultra conservative?
kerry-is-my-prez
Jun 2016
#55
It's weird that people think the declared presumptive Dem nominee is so fragile
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#46
Legally, one doesn't have to show more than "gross negligence." That fits the facts here.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#31
You need me to demonstrate the bias for you of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal? Really?
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#92
I was hoping you'd demonstrate the bias of the article in question, actually nt
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#104
The OpenNet network that state.gov uses was unsecure for classified information
BlueStateLib
Jun 2016
#66
These TS/SAP drone kill communications should have been sent over the Joint Intel secure system.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#99
Her email from the context of the OP and an attempt to go there in a web browser to see. nt
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#60
It appears she wanted a communications system that was outside of public purview
tabasco
Jun 2016
#64
How is that done considering that all her emails were sent to or received from a state.gov account
BlueStateLib
Jun 2016
#67
Actually many of her staff used personal email accounts and some of them even used clintonemail.com
2cannan
Jun 2016
#69
Indeed but if that was a load of crap it's hard to take the present hoo-ha seriously. nt
ucrdem
Jun 2016
#77
That may be so but she was the US Secretary of State running her department legally.
ucrdem
Jun 2016
#79
"ongoing criminal enterprise" is so OTT it shows the whole thing for what it is, a nothing burger.
ucrdem
Jun 2016
#85
Hillary didn't blow up the ME, that's foolish. She may have supported some soft power ops
ucrdem
Jun 2016
#88
Not Hill, Bill. For years I believed the Nation line that Bill sold Dems down the river
ucrdem
Jun 2016
#90
Her server was secure and the WSJ article does not say what you claim it says.
annavictorious
Jun 2016
#80
The server was intruded several times in the first few months after it was taken over
leveymg
Jun 2016
#81
And 100's of thousands of federal and military personnel private data was compromised off
itsrobert
Jun 2016
#94