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.

 

State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes, more questions that we cannot answer.

What does this prove? We need more information before coming to any conclusion.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Read the report. There are many similarities.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I know I'm gonna hate myself for this, but...

Hack attempts are like cockroaches, for every one you see there are at least a dozen more you don't.

You seem like a fairly smart guy, are you telling me that there is no way a server could be hacked and it not be known by those who were hacked?

Take a look at any of the multi-million companies who have had their customer databases hacked. I can guarantee you that they have people working for their security teams that have a heck of a lot more kung fu than Pagliano.

Pagliano was a barely qualified sysadmin who had way out of date certifications and from the bits and pieces that have come out about this whole scenario, I fail to comprehend how anyone can give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I disagree
I think you want to create similarities to defend Hillary and for no other purpose



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



You seem like a fairly smart guy, are you telling me that there is no way a server could be hacked and it not be known by those who were hacked?


I don't know. That is not my expertise. All I have said is that we don't know if it was hacked or not. To assert that is has been without evidence is illogical.



Pagliano was a barely qualified sysadmin who had way out of date certifications and from the bits and pieces that have come out about this whole scenario, I fail to comprehend how anyone can give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.


Innocent until proven guilty.

In this case, it appears that she did violate rules and guidelines, but I doubt it will result in charges. From reading this report it seems that there are a lot of issues within the Department that have to be resolved.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

I disagree
I think you want to create similarities to defend Hillary and for no other purpose


Again, read the report.

I am not defending Hillary, I just like debating this topic with the nutters.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Yes, more questions that we cannot answer.

What does this prove? We need more information before coming to any conclusion.


But we do have some important answers:


Earlier this month, NBC’s Mitchell asked Clinton the following, “Any indication your private server was hacked by foreign hackers?” “No,” Clinton replied. “Not at all.”

However, the audit reveals that Clinton did have suspicions that someone had breached her email back in 2011. See footnote 159 from the audit:


In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.

I added bold for emphasis

source

Clinton once again broke with department policy, she is a security risk.



edit on 25-5-2016 by AlaskanDad because: close ex tag



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad



Clinton once again broke with department policy, she is a security risk.


She is a security risk because she did not report one email she was unsure about?

Ok, but can she be criminally charged for that?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This time it's an e-mail scandal. Hillary's past, present, are ripe with scandals. The country doesn't need these distractions with a President Hillary Clinton at the helm. We would have Washington Gridlock on steroids. Far worse than what Obama endured. Hillary would start out Day #1 as a "lame duck"!



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Actually, I just like debating about Hillary. If Hillary loses then Bernie gets the nomination, I hope. And he leads Trump in the polls over Hillary. So, if you guys want to lose the Presidency over emails, well, ok.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well, all you have to do is be somewhat aware and savvy to current technology from daily use. I presume you utilize technology, the internet, smartphone, computers, and read news stories, etc. In other words you live in a modern first world country in the 21st century aware of your society and what's going on in the world.

I don't need to list a series of stories about large scale hacks do? These companies didn't find out about it until after the fact and then their customers were notified of breaches; oftentimes these companies will then pay for an identity protection program as compensation but this doesn't always happen because it could be argued to imply culpability on the part of the company for not having proper safeguards in place.

If they would have seen them happening, they would have prevented, or at least mitigated, them. But they didn't find out until after the fact.

Getting back to the report:


Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs.


An obligation she did not meet.

She was offered secure systems, more than once.


...OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution...

The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

...

In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already been set up for the Secretary153 and also stated that “you should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.”154 However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices, stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.


She, and her top advisors, 100% own this entire thing:


...officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff.


Here is the bit about Pagliano being paid by both the Clinton Foundation AND the State Department at the same time:


Secretary Clinton’s counsel advised OIG that the Senior Advisor “performed technology services for the Clinton family for which he was compensated” by check or wire transfer in varying amounts and various times between 2009 and 2013. In addition, the Senior Advisor’s direct supervisors in IRM from 2009 to 2013 told OIG they were unaware of his technical support of the Secretary’s email system. While working at the Department, the Senior Advisor reported directly to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) for Operations, who in turn reported to the Chief Information Officer (CIO). The DCIO and CIO, who prepared and approved the Senior Advisor’s annual evaluations, believed that the Senior Advisor’s job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department. They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working hours. They also told OIG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time government employee.


No one knew Pagliano was running Clinton's email server, as far as anyone in government knew he was their smartphone tech.

You want to compare someone's use to Hillary's? Try this one from the report:


... the newly posted Ambassador had drafted and distributed a revised mission policy concerning communications security that authorized him and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. That prompted senior DS management and cybersecurity staff to email the Ambassador to advise him that DS was dispatching an experienced Regional Computer Security Officer to provide expertise and advice in establishing procedures for handling SBU information that adhered to Department standards for the processing of sensitive material. DS further noted that this visit would be “especially timely in the wake of recent headlines concerning a significant hacking effort directed against the private, web-based email accounts of dozens of senior USG officials, which has generated substantial concern from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary Steinberg, and other Department principals.” Notwithstanding the Department’s concerns, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official business.

...

However, the Ambassador continued to use unauthorized systems to conduct official business. The Department subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for his failure to follow these directions and for several other infractions, but he resigned before any disciplinary measures were imposed.


That is a much more apt comparison than Powell.
edit on 25-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

That's assuming the DNC doesn't swish in Biden.

A Biden/Trump ballot would be wilder than wild.

Can you imagine the debates?




edit on May-25-2016 by xuenchen because: kidilderhopper



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No, not Biden. That would not be exciting at all. Like Romney, his time has passed.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: MOMof3

That's assuming the DNC doesn't swish in Biden.

A Biden/Trump ballot would be wilder than wild.

Can you imagine the debates?





If they swish Biden in...Sanders' people will go ballistic...and with good reason.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I won't put anything past the debbie lesserman agenda.

They could flub the whole thing up.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



I presume you utilize technology, the internet, smartphone, computers, and read news stories, etc.


As little as possible. I don't have a smartphone and my usage of the internet is fairly limited.



That is a much more apt comparison than Powell.


Ok, but does any of that equate to criminal charges against Hillary?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
While I love to hear bad news for Hillary. Based on the article I'm more worried that this is common practice. It even stated that the senior officials weren't familiar with handling electronic communications. What is this 1980? Sounds like they are still covering for her imo. Everyone that has mishandled information electronic or not need to lose their clearances. Just like anyone else would. As a nobody in the intelligence community, I would even be held to higher standards.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd



Based on the article I'm more worried that this is common practice.


Bingo.

I doubt this will result in any criminal indictment. More likely a whole week spent in classes learning how to handle communications if she ever makes it to another position.
edit on 25-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: amicktd



Based on the article I'm more worried that this is common practice.


Bingo.

I doubt this will result in any criminal indictment. More likely a whole week spent in classes learning how to handle communications if she ever makes it to another position.


I don't know, I think that would set a terrible precedent for the entire intelligence community. The problem that really resides here is this wasn't some exercise classified Secret that was being discussed on an unauthorized channel. This was real time missions with people's lives on the line at a minimum. In Hillary's position it most likely put thousands of lives at risk on a daily basis. I just keep wondering what was going on in those timeframes where emails were deleted.

There is a reason for compartmentalizing information, which has already been proven to be transmitted from her private email. This information if leaked could cause wars if not worse and that's from personal experience.
edit on 25-5-2016 by amicktd because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join