| |
News: Clinton used unsecure phone AFTER request denied by NSA
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Clinton used unsecure phone AFTER request denied by NSA
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.
A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.
Clinton's desire for a secure "BlackBerry-like" device, like that provided to President Barack Obama, is recounted in a series of February 2009 exchanges between high-level officials at the State Department and NSA. Clinton was sworn in as secretary the prior month, and had become "hooked" on reading and answering emails on a BlackBerry she used during the 2008 presidential race.
The department's designated NSA liaison, whose name was redacted from the documents, expressed concerns about security vulnerabilities inherent with using BlackBerry devices for secure communications or in secure areas. Clinton began sending work-related emails through private accounts soon after, in March 2009.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hi...ebuffed-by-nsa
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-s...re-smartphone/
--
The point of the article is not about whether she had a good reason to skirt the law, but that there is further proof she did so knowingly, in reaction to not getting something she wanted from the NSA. So she can't argue she had no idea the email wasn't secure or legal, because she'd tried to do it the right way, then got frustrated and did it the prohibited way anyway with total disregard for the rules  and no care that she was sending sensitive information through private accounts.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 9,012
|
It's not her fault people are nosy
Maybe they should mind their own beez wax
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
|
We have the election thread for things like this.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
So you're saying... she WANTED a particular kind of secure device, as it obviously says, and they denied that? Okay. Their problem.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
We have the election thread for things like this.
|
Uh why? This is national security news. It's not tied to a primary, a contest or poll. It's tied to her work as Secretary of State and the ongoing investigation.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
She still has more votes than any other democratic or republican to date. Poor ha. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
The point of the article is not about whether she had a good reason to skirt the law, but that there is further proof she did so knowingly, in reaction to not getting something she wanted from the NSA. So she can't argue she had no idea the email wasn't secure or legal, because she'd tried to do it the right way, then got frustrated and did it the prohibited way anyway with total disregard for the rules and no care that she was sending sensitive information through private accounts. |
Oh, let's also talk about how there's no proof she ever "skirted the law" or sent or received anything that was, at the time of sending or receipt, classified.
I don't see an indictment. I don't see a recommendation from the FBI. I don't see anything except people - including Obama - saying that national security was not compromised.
She requested a secured device, and despite their issues with the model requested, they granted her no secure device at all. This is their problem, their fault.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
So you're saying... she WANTED a particular kind of secure device, as it obviously says, and they denied that? Okay. Their problem.
|
This has to be the silliest thing you've typed to me so far. 
She reached out to the NSA. They told her only the president get such an "expensive secure device" and that she had to use the secure server due to security risks tied to the use of Blackberry's. Yet KNOWING that her request was denied and KNOWING the risks involved, she still chose to use her cellphone and an unsecure server to exchange "sensitive" information.
It's not their problem. It's HER problem. It shows she blatantly broke the rules, while knowing the risks and couldn't give a damn and did something plenty of security experts have said "could have left the messages vulnerable to attack by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-s...re-smartphone/
What a DUMB move. What an entitled move.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/24/2006
Posts: 24,963
|
Quote:
|
but that there is further proof she did so knowingly
|
This. SHe needs to stop playin the fool.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Oh, let's also talk about how there's no proof she ever "skirted the law" or sent or received anything that was, at the time of sending or receipt, classified.
I don't see an indictment. I don't see a recommendation from the FBI. I don't see anything except people - including Obama - saying that national security was not compromised.
She requested a secured device, and despite their issues with the model requested, they granted her no secure device at all. This is their problem, their fault.
|
nothing is going to happen.  don't even waste your time trying to reason with Hillary haters. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
This has to be the silliest thing you've typed to me so far.
She reached out to the NSA. They told her only the president get such an "expensive secure device" and that was to use the secure server due to security risks tied to the use of Blackberry's and KNOWING that her request was denied and KNOWING the risks involved, she still chose to use an unsecure server to exchange "sensitive" information.
It's not their problem. It's HER problem. It shows she blatantly broke the rules, while knowing the risks and couldn't give a damn and did something plenty of security experts have said "could have left the messages vulnerable to attack by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-s...re-smartphone/
What a DUMB move. What an entitled move. |
She just did what every other Secretary of State has done. Collin Powell did the same thing and had more emails retroactively labeled as classified even though at the time they weren't, yet we aren't talking about him?
This is all just a trick to get Hillary to look bad IMO. Not a serious discussion.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
This has to be the silliest thing you've typed to me so far.
She reached out to the NSA. They told her only the president get such an "expensive secure device" and that she had to use the secure server due to security risks tied to the use of Blackberry's. Yet KNOWING that her request was denied and KNOWING the risks involved, she still chose to use her cellphone and an unsecure server to exchange "sensitive" information.
It's not their problem. It's HER problem. It shows she blatantly broke the rules, while knowing the risks and couldn't give a damn and did something plenty of security experts have said "could have left the messages vulnerable to attack by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-s...re-smartphone/
What a DUMB move. What an entitled move. |
There were actually no rules against it and other SoS's did the same damn thing, we and every news outlet on earth have been over this. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/3/2011
Posts: 22,014
|
Sooo she wanted a secure phone, the NSA denied her one, while condemning her for using a Blackberry? Not her problem.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/12/2012
Posts: 10,997
|
She asked them for a phone and they didn't want to give her one. What was the good sis going to do?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Oh, let's also talk about how there's no proof she ever "skirted the law" or sent or received anything that was, at the time of sending or receipt, classified.
I don't see an indictment. I don't see a recommendation from the FBI. I don't see anything except people - including Obama - saying that national security was not compromised.
She requested a secured device, and despite their issues with the model requested, they granted her no secure device at all. This is their problem, their fault.
|
The emails clearly show that she was made aware of the dangers tied to using her phone for sensitive information and in secure areas yet she chose to risk it anyways. How can you ever justify breaking the rules - after being made aware of them - and RISKING the Secretary of State being hacked just so that Clinton can use her Blackberry? How can the comfort of doing that ever be greater than the potential risks?? Risks she was made aware of a month before!
How can you see an indictment or a recommendation from the FBI in an ONGOING investigation?
She requested a secured device, they said NO since it's expensive and only meant for Presidents. The warned her about the risks. EVERYONE else except for the President uses the same server Hillary was supposed to use to limit security risks.
You're kidding yourself if you think this doesn't make Hillary look bad. They made her aware of the risk, told her to use the secure server and she still EXPOSED the US to security risks. So her problem, so very much her problem lol.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/19/2012
Posts: 5,843
|
She could take a dump on a shovel and fling it at a child and I'd still vote for her over the Republican candidates.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Reza
She still has more votes than any other democratic or republican to date. Poor ha. |
I mean I guess, but if she gets into legal trouble or if more of these stories keep coming out before November it'll definitely harm her in the GE.
Honestly though, I do think most/all of these stories are being exaggerated and/or completely fabricated by people with the express purpose of hurting her election chances.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Qwerty1234
The emails clearly show that she was made aware of the dangers tied to using her phone for sensitive information and in secure areas yet she chose to risk it anyways. How can you ever justify breaking the rules - after being made aware of them - and RISKING the Secretary of State being hacked just so that Clinton can use her Blackberry? How can the comfort of doing that ever be greater than the potential risks?? Risks she was made aware of a month before!
How can you see an indictment or a recommendation from the FBI in an ONGOING investigation?
She requested a secured device, they said NO since it's expensive and only meant for Presidents. The warned her about the risks. EVERYONE else except for the President uses the same server Hillary was supposed to use to limit security risks.
You're kidding yourself if you think this doesn't make Hillary look bad. They made her aware of the risk, told her to use the secure server and she still EXPOSED the US to security risks. So her problem, so very much her problem lol.
|
There was no rule broken and there was nothing regarding having her own email server that she was "made aware of" by being denied a secure device.
They denied a secure device with a BULL reason - "oh only the president can have that sorry, you as Secretary of State aren't important enough" - and then later she found out she wasn't required to have a secure government device at all. Not. Her. Problem.
I don't know how to make this more clear to you. She did literally nothing other Secretaries had not done. She broke no actual rules and, as far as everyone who's so far commented is concerned, no laws either. It doesn't make her look bad to anyone who bothers to use their time to research and to assess precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
