It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New email release shows Clinton chose not to use secure phone line

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
More damaging documents have been made public about how lackadaisical Hillary's State Department apparently was in its early stages.

This new info has her conversing with Cheryl Mills (Feb 2009) about some secure lines and Hillary sure sounds very confused.

?? Like Hillary knew nothing about "security" after being a Senator ???

This could be indications of possible mental lapses, or better yet, Hillary may have been engaging in "buttering-up" tactics to convince her staff (and in a weird sense herself) that an open system works better for any number of sinister reasons.

Christ only knows why she was doing this. But I think many others know why by now don't they.

It's a wonder she wasn't asking for Morse Code encryption.


New email release shows Clinton chose not to use secure phone line, acknowledged Blackberry risk


A new set of State Department documents released Thursday by the watchdog group Judicial Watch reveal then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the choice not to use a secure phone line amid a technical problem and acknowledged the risk of using a private Blackberry phone.

The documents contain a Feb. 22, 2009, email exchange between Clinton and her then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills attempting to communicate over a secure line after Clinton returned from an overseas trip.

When there were issues setting up a secure communication, Clinton wrote to Mills, “I called ops and they gave me your ‘secure’ cells… but only got a high-pitched whining sound.”

Mills then suggested that Clinton try the secure line again, but the former secretary wrote back, “I give up. Call me on my home #.”


Judicial Watch: New Clinton Emails Reveal Clinton Knew about Security Risk of Private Blackberry, Avoided Use of Secure Phone

. . . _ _ _ . . .







edit on May-12-2016 by xuenchen because: sos recieved by s.s. californian




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
They have this technical fault as the reason she used her own phone. I doubt that very much. Whatever she was involved in was probably highly illegal and she knew it. Now they are covering that up with "the secure line" wasn't working.

Like, there only one secure line up there on the Hill?

And what were they discussing again?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


And what were they discussing again?


Maybe that slick 100 mil The Clinton Foundation was going
to be slushing from The Saudi's?

New Clinton Scandal; 100 Million to Clinton Foundation From Saudi's

Just a guess.

edit on 12-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Good guess.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
It feels like she has been intentionally lackadaisical in her positions. Was she purposefully choosing to leave back doors open into her security? It's like leaving a locked door ajar to sneak your friends into a movie theater. Except this movie theater is national security and the person leaving the door open is running for president.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

They have this technical fault as the reason she used her own phone. I doubt that very much. Whatever she was involved in was probably highly illegal and she knew it. Now they are covering that up with "the secure line" wasn't working.

Like, there only one secure line up there on the Hill?

And what were they discussing again?


So how does that work in your mind?

There is an e -mail telling someone to call them on an un-secured line and you seem to be saying they talked on an un-secured line because the content would be illegal and therefore incriminating.

If the content was as you say highly illegal then they should use a secured line to keep from being caught.


I don't like the witch either, but you should at least try to make accusations with some common sense.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The best place to hide a lit match is in a forest fire.

The more intelligence leaks and lax security at State...the easier it is to hide your intentional ones.

Remember...NO Inspector General at State while Clinton was Secretary of State.


State Department Lacked Top Watchdog During Hillary Clinton Tenure

www.wsj.com...

GREAT FIND, X.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
It feels like she has been intentionally lackadaisical in her positions. Was she purposefully choosing to leave back doors open into her security? It's like leaving a locked door ajar to sneak your friends into a movie theater. Except this movie theater is national security and the person leaving the door open is running for president.


You are getting warmer.




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


If the content was as you say highly illegal then they should use a secured line to keep from being caught.

Those are recorded. Getting caught? She's not going to get 'caught', shes the chosen one. This three ring circus around her affairs is more cover up.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Interesting.

Can anyone prove if any information was conveyed over unsecured lines that would incriminate any party involved?
edit on 12-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Grimpachi


If the content was as you say highly illegal then they should use a secured line to keep from being caught.

Those are recorded. Getting caught? She's not going to get 'caught', shes the chosen one. This three ring circus around her affairs is more cover up.


Why do you claim that secured phone lines are recorded? That would be the opposite of secured phone lines.


Can you show us where it is stated that secured phone lines are recorded?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT



Remember...NO Inspector General at State while Clinton was Secretary of State.


That is not entirely true. There was an interim IG in place.


For five years, including all of Clinton’s time as secretary, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General never had a confirmed inspector. Instead, it was lead by acting inspector Harold W. Geisel


An interim IG was in place during her tenure, but if you read up on the issue, a conspiracy lies behind that as well...which has never been proven.

townhall.com...



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert



The State Department had no permanent inspector general—the lead watchdog charged with uncovering misconduct and waste—during Hillary Clinton’s entire tenure as secretary,leaving in place an acting inspector who had close ties to State Department leadership.

www.wsj.com...

"...who had close ties to State Department leadership"
'State Department leadership' would be...?

edit on 12-5-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT




Remember...NO Inspector General at State while Clinton was Secretary of State.


I have said for months that this one fact is a key part in this FBI investigation.

There is a reason why Obama was derelict in his duty to appoint a permanent IG for the State Department for all those years and that reason will come out eventually. He waited an additional five months after she left before he appointed one. I hope the FBI looks at that failure real close.

The acting IG was known to be more of a lapdog than a watchdog.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yup. The conspiracy.

Doesn't matter. Your assertion is only half-true. That is what I was addressing.

You should be completely honest to the best of your ability when posting information.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yup. Honesty is the BEST policy. Heed your own advice.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
So, Hillary swore on an affidavit that she started using the private email server on March 18, 2009, and turned in emails from that date forward to the state department.

And yet, here we see at least 36 pages of emails dated before that date. And some of them have redacted information, and some are marked "Confidential". And they are State Department business.

So, I wonder if these were turned in before. And she lied on her affidavit?

What was she hiding in these emails from before March 18?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




What was she hiding in these emails from before March 18?


Clearly confirmation about her taking on the lobbyist that give her millions.

She has made those claims repeatedly in the debates as how she has taken on Energy,Healthcare, and lobbyist despite them giving her money. Yet she hasn't produce any evidence to back up those claims, so surely it must be in those hidden emails.

She is like the super rich person who anonymously donates millions to charity.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The email regarding Hillary saying she was going to call on unsecure line was evidence of her negligence, but was not the only evidence.

There have been other emails released showing others in IT and the State Dept. trying to convince her to use their secure devices and accounts, and offering to set up a secure desktop for her in her office. They specifically explained the risks of using insecure systems, and she intentionally refused. She can not claim that she did not know the risks, even though ignorance is not an excuse under the statutes.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The email regarding Hillary saying she was going to call on unsecure line was evidence of her negligence, but was not the only evidence.

There have been other emails released showing others in IT and the State Dept. trying to convince her to use their secure devices and accounts, and offering to set up a secure desktop for her in her office. They specifically explained the risks of using insecure systems, and she intentionally refused. She can not claim that she did not know the risks, even though ignorance is not an excuse under the statutes.


Un-freakin-believable!! You would think that in a span of four years these IT and State Dept. personnel would have gone to the State's Inspector General to inform him of this dangerous neglect......oh wait! There was no IG.
edit on 12-5-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join