Clinton abandoned secure line to use home phone, new email shows

[NWCorona]

New emails released by a conservative watchdog group on Thursday appear to show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directing a top aide to call her via an unsecured phone line when technical troubles prevented a secure phone conversation.

“I give up. Call me on my home #,” Clinton told then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills in a February 2009 email, after more than an hour of trouble trying to communicate via a secure line.

“I just spoke to ops and called you reg line - we have to wait until we see each other b/c [the] technology is not working,” Mills said in another email sent at almost exactly the same time.
“Pls try again,” responded Clinton, a few moments later.

It’s unclear whether the two did connect, or if they moderated any discussion they may have had to avoid sensitive topics while on an unsecure landline.

But the episode is likely to cause concern among critics of Clinton, who have previously accused her of resorting to unsecure forms of communication out of convenience, potentially jeopardizing sensitive information. Another email of Clinton’s, released in January, appeared to show her telling a top aide to remove identifying details and send a sensitive document through a “nonsecure” channel instead of via "secure fax."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279764-email-clinton-abandoned-secure-line-to-use-home-phone

Some more drips

[scscholar]

1. She gets stuff done

There's no telling how long it would have taken government IT to eventually fix their problem. Whoever screwed-up that secure line is to blame for not doing their job.

[NWCorona]

2. It doesn't work like that.

[moriah]

100. Actually, there's no real evidence even there.

For all we know, the call could have been to arrange when to see each other to communicate the sensitive information. She had often said she preferred to deal with such information in person.

But this was in February of 2009. As in, extremely early on, when things potentially weren't set up fully.

You're really going to get uptight over early technical glitches when dealing with the conversion from an older administration?

[catnhatnh]

42. Absolutely

Both misdemeanors and felonies!

[SusanCalvin]

48. You're kidding, right? Or you've never had a security clearance. nt

[reformist2]

61. I love this response! Hillary is a go-getter! Nothing will stop her!

[Vote2016]

65. But mostly it's shitty neocon stuff

[HooptieWagon]

83. Probably just too stupid to operate it.

[timmymoff]

99. The people of Iraq,Syria, and Libya are aware of what she gets done.

[CoffeeCat]

101. Tell that to the FBI (nt)

[grasswire]

3. DAMN!

Perfidy.

[NWCorona]

9. Especially considering that if Hillary was home she could have used her SCIF

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. "But people don't care", Clinton supporters Hillsplain.

One of the most vexing aspects of this primary is the degree to which people can be presented with the essential unfitness of their candidate and not really make any attempt to deny it. Even "I'm with her" is fundamentally a rejection of any kind of deeper examination.

Unfit? Whatevah! I'm with her, and besides... Superdelegates!

[Sparkly]

5. LOL!! The conservative "watchdog" group will keep trying.

And I suppose some here will keep parroting them, in the guise of "progressivism."

[NWCorona]

6. And some will ignore until it's too late.

[Sparkly]

10. I ignored the nonsense about President Obama's birth certificate, too.

Also the Swiftboaters.

Also the "Al Gore is a serial liar" smears.

Yeah. I'm going to ignore this.

[NWCorona]

12. I don't think the FBI or the courts entertained any of that birther bull tho

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Nope the courts did not entertain any of that

nope

and the FBI was never involved in that either.

[Sparkly]

18. And most of us ignored it, not for that reason

but because we recognize BS when we see it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. So you are claimiing the FBI should ignore this?

It is a criminal INVESTIGATION kid, not a security review

[Sparkly]

26. Makes no difference to my BS meter.

They got the former President Clinton under oath over a claim of "sexual harassment" that amounted to an awkward pass at best, parsed the word "alone" (was he alone with Ms. Lewinsky when Betty Currie was in the next room) and decided he wanted to "mislead" his interrogators.

And there they left it.

So no, I do not get into a tizzy when "rightwing watchdog groups" use government agencies to pursue their political agenda.

And for the record, THAT is what Nixon did: Used the FBI for his own political purposes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. That was a bs pursuit

this is not.

And for the record, NIXON still won two elections and left office under a shadow.

[Sparkly]

29. His opponents didn't think so.

It was the scandal of the century, as far as they were concerned.

Same here, and she isn't even accused of anything!

I am not sure what point you're making about Nixon -- but yeah, I know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. So we are again in one of those quantum unverse connections

and in your universe Nixon never ever left office. Either that. or you are too young.

By the way, I follow courts, she is not charged YET, because you first need to know if there is anything to charge. We are in that part of the process, where they are essentially examining the evidence before referring things for either charges or not. The way it looks to me, yes I cover courts. we might have a grand jury empaneled, no they don't have to tell you, And you will know, with the rest of us, when they unseal an indictment, if indeed they decide there is enough evidence to indict.

And they are not in any rush to finish it, in fact the fact they have delayed twice, December and now May, tells me they are finding something and building a case in which case, there might be charges coming.

By the way under that poor logic of yours, Nixon technically was never charged either. The House was going to impeach, that would be your charging sheet for a sitting president, but it never got there, since he resigned.

Jesus this is not an episode of law and order... it is not wrapped up in 48 minutes.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. Most people ignored the allegations of Watergate as they started to leak out

in the summer and early fall of 1972, because, you know, they "recognized BS when they saw it".

[Sparkly]

30. I don't think that is true.

Most people did not ignore it. And it was not BS, was it?

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Um, Nixon won the '72 election by a landslide

So yes, most voters ignored those allegations that were coming out in the months before the election.

[Sparkly]

40. Before the election, they weren't "coming out"

as they did afterward.

In any case, this is a separate issue so I'll stand corrected and give you this one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Go viist one of the many virtual time lines

http://watergate.info/chronology/brief-timeline-of-events

Which reminds me, I got to update mine

[99Forever]

49. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Those of us that were there, watched it in REAL time.

Same kind of denial that we are watching with Clinton and her personality club.

This will not end well.

[Sparkly]

53. Thank you.

I was very young in "REAL time," and conceded the point to nz.

But thank you for continuing to represent your own "personality club" as you did.

[anotherproletariat]

110. You like the fuck word don't you...makes you feel powerful?

It really works well, BTW.

[merbex]

56. Well, I'm from Massachusetts and we proudly had the bumper sticker after Nixon's 're-election':

'Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts' and that little ditty was BECAUSE of Watergate, his continuing of the war, and his corrupt administration.

[Art_from_Ark]

63. The rest of the country was sure fooled

I remember my grandfather complaining when we were watching one of the Sunday political programs back then that "the ... reporters are out to get Nixon". I've deleted the expletives, just like the news programs did when they were broadcasting excerpts from some Nixon tapes

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Your dad must have talked with mine and mine was not even in the US

but getting this through the filter (two times removed) of Mexican Media. I remember Jacobo Zabludovsky making a comment about American reporters doggedly reporting on it, but I do not remember if it was good or not, in the evening news. Those were the Echeverria years, the height of the Dictablanda though. I was was a kid, I swear. I did not understand how bad it was until I came to the states and Iran Contra broke... and people made references to Watergate.

But I remember my dad swearing, and the man never ever did.

[elehhhhna]

105. You recognize b.s.? How do you feel about Hrc's IWR vote, then? Can she recognize b.s.?

[NWCorona]

20. It's shocking how people fail to see the gravity of the situation Hillary is in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. At this point I am left with one word: PARTISANS

It was the same, but to a lesser extent with both Watergate and Iran Contra. I admit, the Lewinsky scandal was truly a partisan witch hunt. This is not. And this is very much so self inflicted

[NWCorona]

36. Partisans, agreed!

I also think this is so self inflected. It's also why regardless of what Obama says in public. He's not giving a pass IMHO. Hillary was asked multiple times to get on .Gov email and she refused. Obama made an executive order outlawing private servers (because of Hillary) and she still kept on using that server. Did I mention her affair with Sid behind Obama's back? Also did you see that interview with Valerie Jarrett? When she was asked about this and if Hillary was warned. She was practicality giddy with her smile when she said yes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Well I know they are building a case

and checking it twice. We cover courts from time to time and this is what this looks to exactly as.

[NWCorona]

47. It definitely appears so.

[Fawke Em]

104. I covered courts for 13 years - this is EXACTLY what it looks like.

I think there's a grand jury seated, too.

Why else bring Guccifer over NOW? He's been in jail in Romania for more than two years. He wasn't going anywhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. They did interview him over there as well

[Sparkly]

31. Oh, please pass the smelling salts!!

[NWCorona]

38. Sure, after I'm done.

[Sparkly]

41. Deal!

[panader0]

62. Agreed. This will not end well.

HRC supporters are content to be blind. The Clinton Foundation investigation will be even more damning.

[JoePhilly]

24. + 1

[grasswire]

7. Did we know this before?

That there is yet another email account -- one reported in this article to have been in use while she was senator -- that she no longer can access to retrieve emails?

News to me.

Hideous.

[NWCorona]

11. Yes that info was out before this article.

Currently there are 3 gaps in Hillary's emails.

[morningfog]

81. What are the three gaps?

Is one the 55,000 deleted as "personal" from her time at State?

[Sparkly]

14. Yes.

There are phone lines. There is an email channel for non-classified communications (whether dot-gov or private - both are considered nonsecure). And there is a secure fax system for classified intel.

None of this is news.

And in DC, you could create a whole new bureaucracy for debating every piece of email to determine which agencies think it's classified, which don't, and decide what the proper classification should be.

[NWCorona]

21. This is news.

[Sparkly]

33. To you, maybe.

Seems most facts about Sec. Clinton are news around here.

[renate]

8. it looks to me like they tried really hard to follow protocol but couldn't

So they weren't blithely ignorant of or uncaring about security rules.

This leads me to believe that they would have been very careful in their discussion, since both of them were quite aware that the line wasn't secure. I'm concerned, as someone who doesn't want a President Trump, about the email issue, but I'm not concerned about this.

(P.S. I support Bernie but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in seeing our likely nominee weakened. I'm not one of the Bernie supporters whom Hillary supporters accuse of being gleeful over this kind of thing. I most emphatically am not. But dismissing the server issue is not going to make it go away, and I hope plans are in place for if it all goes sideways.)

[NWCorona]

16. Hillary has a SCIF located within her house. There's no indication that she tried that route

More than likely the secure phone couldn't complete the handshake with Hillary's.

This article further illustrates Hillary's disregard for protocols when they get in her way.

[MisterP]

77. Clinton's doing all the weakening to herself--that's been true since 1979

[silvershadow]

13. K&R nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Yes those phones have issues

but a cog did this, it is club fed...

And that is a largish drop

[tonyt53]

34. "New emails released by a conservative watchdog group"

Then followed by "appear to show". Desperate much maybe?

[NWCorona]

39. The emails are there to read for your self. And those are Hillary's words.

[amborin]

35. Wow, no end to the wrongdoings that put the nation at risk and potentially

hid who knows what?

[mr clean]

44. Another reason not to trust her.

Just think about the nuclear codes, how safe would they be if she got in.

[Sparkly]

50. Safer than the ones that were hacked.

[Progressive dog]

46. A "coservative watchdog group"

is certainly a source I wouldn't expect to try to spin that report.

[JSup]

52. At least they...

...didn't edit that part out this time and say "a watchdog group".

[coffeeAM]

51. The democratic party needs to force her to suspend her campaign beforre this gets worse.

[Sparkly]

54. Thank you for your CONCERN.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Well tweety was asking today who replaces her

which tells me their justice correspondent (Williams iirc, I rarely watch them anymore), has likely heard something at the usual watering holes. Tweety is one of the most unaware catapult the propaganda types.

[Sparkly]

59. The media loves nothing more than a Clinton Scandal.

We'll see. I wouldn't put anything past the rightwing opposition (I don't believe for a second this is coming from Sanders, for the record). They can keep the "investigation" going, put her under oath, question her behind closed doors and come out with a cockamamie tale, who knows -- and I expect they will, right up to November.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Ok let me explain something

there is a civil case, that actually was started by CREW, until they were bought by Brock, who took them off that and led to many resignations in protest because those folks care about integrity in government, and they were as left wing as they come. They were working with the people as Judicial Watch, that is a CIVIL CASE... for the record FOIA legislation is a DIRECT result of Watergate. That would be freedom of information act, and if you ever have worked in any capacity as a journalist, you would get why FOIA, or in the case of California, the Brown Act, are critical for government transparency. This is not negotiable or partisan. Or at least it should not be. And yes, if I request email communications from the State Department, where this started, and they are not denying because they are classified, (incidentally usually when you do and they are they tell you, or they send you a copy that is essentially black, yup that heavily redacted) but rather they cannot find them, that is a problem, which is exactly how this case came to be. It started truly with CREW and JW took it over.

There are two other cases that are possibly Criminal, referred to the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, by two different INSPECTOR GENERALS, possibly a third, Those were initiated by GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. One is from the States Department, the second is from the CIA, and the third possibly, they are slimy as always and hard to pin down the National Security Agency.

So you keep harping on the Right Wing crap. Hard Core republicans did the same thing until it was so bad, none of them voted for Nixon. Yes that is actually a fact. And usually I do not discuss this crap on this site anymore, because you guys will have to chose, if they chose to indict, your party, or your country. Yes, it might come to that stark choice. I know where I expect you, from your posts to stand, your party.

[Sparkly]

66. Your sources, please?

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. My sources

you must be kidding

Here you go on FOIA

https://www.eff.org/issues/transparency/history-of-foia

Crew filed a FOIA request, Chicago Trib

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-clinton-email-scandal-20160327-story.html


David Brock takes over CREW

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/david-brock-citizens-for-responsibility-and-ethics-in-washington-110003

And the OIG referral straight from State

https://oig.state.gov/whats-new/9811

You really need to catch up on a lot of this crap.

[Sparkly]

82. Thanks for the information.

With all due respect, I see CREW filed an unspecified request that didn't yield anything; later they elected Brock; and the OIG page states clearly: "An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes."

So I think I'm all caught up. Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. And the FBI director said yesterday that this was not a security review

so you might want to argue with the FBI. TWO CASES< one civil one criminal at least.

FBI Director James Comey told a group of reporters Wednesday that the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server is more than a "security inquiry," a phrase the Democratic presidential front-runner and her campaign use instead of "investigation" to describe the FBI's action in the case.

"I don't even know what that means," Comey said. "I'm not familiar with the term security inquiry.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-director-refutes-clinton-campaigns-description-of-email-investigation/

The Department of Justice and specifically the FBI do not do security enquiries, they do investigations, They are criminal investigations, All caught up now. Keep scoffing.

[Sparkly]

87. I put nothing past them.

The rightwing is pervasive, and they'd do anything to get HRC under oath. Then they can ask her about ANYthing -- same game they played with President Clinton.

Let's wait and see, rather than convicting her before there's a whit of evidence, let alone a single charge.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. And I cover courts, I know how this shit works

you might someday realize how that works too.

We are at the INVESTIGATION level, before referral for an indictment.

Here we are following an actual court case that is far less serious than this, I guarantee it. By the time the courts are done it will be two long years. We are right now in this case well before the preliminary hearings, hell before the referral. You are scoffing at the investigation.

Now go along child, This is not an episode of law and order.

[Sparkly]

90. Okay...

I am not going to waste time with insults.

Have a good night.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Good... and I am really not going to waste my time with the willfully ignorant.

[riderinthestorm]

67. Just when I think the level of denial can't get any worse... smh nt

[Sparkly]

68. For me, it's the level of vitriol and creative scandal-mongering.

I don't deny they'll keep going with it. Why stop now? It's only been 35 years.

[riderinthestorm]

72. This is a FBI investigation. Not partisan.

Not creative scandal mongering.

I'm on record that I neither want nor expect an indictment. Its terrible for Democrats and the Democratic party. I'm similarly on record as saying I'll unequivocally vote for Hillary over Trump even as I'm a hard core Bernie supporter.

That said, I'm not going to simply ignore the growing avalanche.

There's something there.

Ignore it at your peril.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. I gave that poster the referall to the FBI straight from teh State Department

that is as close to the horse's mouth as you can get.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. It is to no pun, watergate levels now

[riderinthestorm]

75. Ikr? Obviously many here don't remember Watergate was similarly scoffed at

I'm pretty incredulous at the denial.

I know. I know. I should know better but it's horrifying. The Dem party is just a group of sycophantic cheerleaders?

Small sob...

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. I do not personally remember it

well I remember my dad in Mexico City making comments about Nixon in not the nicest of terms, from the reporting on the evening news. Once that shit hit the wall, after the fan, it became international news. Remember, many of these kids, and yes they are kids, were not even around for Iran Contra, or conscious. You want them to remember Watergate? That was two lifetimes ago. Literally.

(A lifetime is considered 25 years by census experts)

[riderinthestorm]

78. I'm too young to remember as well but I'm a student of history nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I am a student of history too

[riderinthestorm]

85. One of my degrees is in Modern European History w a minor in American History

(Add in the MBA from U of Chicago and I'm the perfect stereotype of everything wrong with Western higher education but I digress...)

One point drilled home by one professor is how sycophantic followers blossom in the face of ever more extremist right/left ideologies. The cultivation of how to nurture mindless followers was an intensive symposium. Of course he was a WWII Polish torture survivor lecturing on ethics....

Big sigh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. I know we did not take the same class

but same theme, in a poli sci 101 class... how you can create true believers, on both sides. The guy was right of Atila the hun, and a former company man. But we sat down many a times, during the semester and later and discussed thing. He LIKED foreign students because they were not the products of USA, USA, USA, bad educational system. his words.

Oh the first day of comparative government he took a young republican to pieces. Kid complained that he did not need to read this lame communist manifesto... and that the professor was obviously a liberal. Oh this former AF guy, who spent fifteen years doing things that he would have to kill you if you figured it out, basically took this kid to pieces. It was one of the most scary and beautiful things to see actually. Prof had no patience for keyboard commandos as we know them these days. He in particular, though his politics were right of Kissinger, hated the young republicans for being a bunch of hateful, snideful, racist pricks who would never actually suit up and take the risks they wanted others to take.

Yeah, he said I was a lefty, but at least I new why, what it meant, unlike many American kids, and I was willing to put my life on the line to help others, so he could respect that. And he also gently guided me to some reading that was not in the syllabus, and made me realize that yes, even in the most radical of the RW you could find nuggets, He also hated Ayn Rand acolytes and Rush Limbaugh.

[Babel_17]

93. It's the coverup, the attempt to hide what the public has a right to know

So much ground to cover ... I really want to see some finality to the emails that were deleted by the lawyer who used a keyword search. A comprehensive explanation of that, delivered by talking heads like Wolf Blitzer and a CNN panel, for example, could be a fun and amazing experience.

That, and how much any of this dovetails with the Clinton Foundation. It's the way isolated dumbfuckery connect together that make for an eye-opening tale, imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. It is always the coverup

and of course, follow the money..

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. yes

[ucrdem]

57. See this is why we're laughing.

Here pysops super-spy double-plus-secure Bushco-NSA approved email account went belly up so she used her phone. And that's a problem why?

[NWCorona]

60. It sounds like you didn't even read the article.

[Sparkly]

70. Well if it's a rightwing watchdog group

quoted in The Hill about what "appears" to be, let's suspend all critical thinking and jump to conclusions!

[frylock]

74. What a fucking idiot.

Her carelessness is positively incomprehensible.

[FreakinDJ]

89. and they want to make her president

Trump's stupidity or Hillary's "I don't care" attitude

Were all winners

[gordianot]

91. If you ever met or spoke to either Clinton you would be cautious.

The stories were always swirling around them and the gossip was disgusting it always came from Democrats not Republicans. The ambition of this pair is stunning. Assuming an Ostrich position is the best option for a Clintonesque partisan. It is not hard to see how this is happening from the stories I heard years, ago only on a much grander scale. What a world class mess worthy of Shakespearean tragedy.

Disclaimer: I do not rejoice in these horrors Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with it. No one person running for office is worth it, if nothing comes this there is bound to be more in the future.

[Hekate]

95. The links she "abandoned" were less secure than the one she had created.

[NWCorona]

96. Hardly

[Tarc]

97. "It’s unclear...or if..."

Stellar fact-finding there, bro.

[NWCorona]

98. Are you doing your best Bill Clinton impersonation?

Hillary's words speak for themselves.

[Tarc]

102. Please don't lie

It was the words of the so-called journalist who speculated on possible meaning without fact to support it. I realize this is the sort of hard-hitting HA Goodman-style "journalism" is what y'all love, but it doesn't fly very far in the real world.

[NWCorona]

103. Lying and joking are two different things

[randome]

107. So she spoke to someone on an unsecure line. Did they discuss sensitive info?

Good God, this is the easiest one to debunk of them all! Worthy of 3 rofls!

No devil's advocacy for self-examination at all!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[NWCorona]

108. That's what secure phones are for.

You can play ostrich all you like.