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)

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:30 PM Jun 2016

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 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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
implies, apparent, could have, refused. yep something doesnt quite add up. charges with NO proof nt msongs Jun 2016 #1
The Sec. of State CANNOT authorize drone strikes!!! AllTooEasy Jun 2016 #56
Newsflash..... tabasco Jun 2016 #61
Under Sec. Clinton, State became a drone targeting decision-maker. DOS also became a top spy leveymg Jun 2016 #97
To get the real answer... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #2
"4 legs good 2 legs better" NWCorona Jun 2016 #10
Yessss... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #15
Orwell was ahead of his time! NWCorona Jun 2016 #19
That is definitely playing out... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #30
"Some animals are more equal than others." leveymg Jun 2016 #100
I guess you have failed to notice that there is something truly DURHAM D Jun 2016 #3
Maybe the OP can think about more than one thing a day. nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #5
Constant repeat of the same drivel isn't thinking. nt DURHAM D Jun 2016 #7
Shouldn't you be focussing all of your attention on the "truly more important going on today?" Gore1FL Jun 2016 #9
This! NWCorona Jun 2016 #16
!!! MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #18
Why is she a hypocrite? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #26
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
It shows what some folks priorities are... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #25
Some people can think about more than one thing in a day. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #32
Now if she is like my sister the answer would be simple. She jwirr Jun 2016 #4
Even your sister can use a land phone? Yes? We know Hillary uses her fax. leveymg Jun 2016 #23
Yes my sis can and does use a land phone. jwirr Jun 2016 #36
Then, she could send and receive classified information at home over a gov't issued phone. leveymg Jun 2016 #42
Point taken. And I also would like to know why Hillary did jwirr Jun 2016 #54
Jury Results Gore1FL Jun 2016 #6
You squeaked by this time. Have to agree with #7 kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #11
It's more than our team vs theirs. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #13
Please see Post 12. Thank you in advance. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #17
I saw it. You called out a DUer. nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #24
Where? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #38
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
As I replied in post 13... Gore1FL Jun 2016 #44
So the WSJ is right wing too? panader0 Jun 2016 #28
You mean the Rupert Murdoch- owned newspaper that is known to be ultra conservative? kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #55
That would be the same Murdoch who held a fundraiser for Hillary? 2cannan Jun 2016 #68
Priceless!!! MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #21
I really don't care why. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #8
Who is the "she" demanding congratulations??? kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #22
I think Warren is speaking of Trump n/t TexasBushwhacker Jun 2016 #58
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #12
I'm pretty sure there are a few more people excited... MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #27
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #33
You are really being uncivil on this thread. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #39
It's hard for some to let go. NWCorona Jun 2016 #43
It's weird that people think the declared presumptive Dem nominee is so fragile Gore1FL Jun 2016 #46
I have a feeling that the purge will be regretted in due time. NWCorona Jun 2016 #49
I've been around since 2001. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #63
This is one that posted yesterday "let bygones be bygones" notadmblnd Jun 2016 #86
I believe this post was on target.... chillfactor Jun 2016 #45
Gee... I go away for a little while and I'm not even missed! MrMickeysMom Jun 2016 #72
This shit doesn't help one bit Arazi Jun 2016 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Duval Jun 2016 #14
It seems to me that her refusal to use secure systems implies intent. panader0 Jun 2016 #20
Legally, one doesn't have to show more than "gross negligence." That fits the facts here. leveymg Jun 2016 #31
^^^That^^^ onecaliberal Jun 2016 #34
I think it has something to do with the rolling passwords. NWCorona Jun 2016 #35
That's why one hires aides who have a better memory than the boss. leveymg Jun 2016 #51
Sharing a password would be an immediate offense but I do wonder in her case. NWCorona Jun 2016 #53
3 more days... chillfactor Jun 2016 #41
Echo Chambers are AWESOME! nt Gore1FL Jun 2016 #47
If you want to post RW garbage feel free to create a Free Republic account. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #71
Demonstrate the Bias. Gore1FL Jun 2016 #73
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
Thanks for the threats. leveymg Jun 2016 #98
Calling it unsecure is a judgement call, and... scscholar Jun 2016 #50
Her "experts" and lawyers apparently weren't expert. leveymg Jun 2016 #52
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
Blackberry phones have survived so long because of their superior security bhikkhu Jun 2016 #57
Is Clintonemail.com her address or is this an attack brand? RogueTrooper Jun 2016 #59
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
Ancient Alien theorists believe ... JoePhilly Jun 2016 #62
You have nothing to say. leveymg Jun 2016 #65
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
When was the last time you sent a fax? ucrdem Jun 2016 #70
About a month ago. leveymg Jun 2016 #74
There's this new gadget called a smartphone ucrdem Jun 2016 #75
I think that whole apple thing was about setting precedent. NWCorona Jun 2016 #76
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 angle I have no problem with. NWCorona Jun 2016 #91
During the first week, HRC demanded a half dozen clones of Obama's phone. leveymg Jun 2016 #78
That may be so but she was the US Secretary of State running her department legally. ucrdem Jun 2016 #79
The Dept's communications ceased to be legal within a week leveymg Jun 2016 #83
"ongoing criminal enterprise" is so OTT it shows the whole thing for what it is, a nothing burger. ucrdem Jun 2016 #85
I knew one of the ladies who wrote those letters. leveymg Jun 2016 #87
Hillary didn't blow up the ME, that's foolish. She may have supported some soft power ops ucrdem Jun 2016 #88
Tell us how you were wrong about her before? leveymg Jun 2016 #89
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
And do you know what the primary cause of successful breaches are? leveymg Jun 2016 #96
Im sorry but WSJ is just another MFM008 Jun 2016 #82
If you actually read the OP, you'd learn that I'm questioning the WSJ piece leveymg Jun 2016 #84
Sometimes, people need an answer right away itsrobert Jun 2016 #93
You haven't read the article, either. It's a remote. You plug in the phone anywhere there's a jack. leveymg Jun 2016 #95
tick tock.. stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #101
"Drip, drip" leveymg Jun 2016 #103
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why did HRC use her unsec...»Reply #0