It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: queenofswords
And actually when you think about it, how do we know that some of the deaths we have read about in the last few years weren't people that were offed because of information professional hackers got from her and her State Dept. and her unsecured way of communicating. We will never know.
Johnson’s account is supported by other media reports that indicate Clinton continued to use unsecured mobile devices even after she received multiple warnings about the security risks associated with that practice. The Inspector General report also discussed several warnings that Clinton received about using unsecured devices.
He said he is only speaking out now because Clinton continues to refuse to admit wrongdoing. “I wouldn’t be so hard on her if she had simply admitted that what she did was wrong,” Johnson said. “But to insist she’s done nothing wrong … is beyond the pale.”
And what I’m basing that on, Brad, is the longstanding – and I don’t just mean recently – the longstanding training and indoctrination that one goes through before you get employed here and the periodic reviews of the training and sensitive information handling that you have to go through all the time. I’ve been here a little bit more than a year; I’ve already had to go through it several times myself. That you – we have two networks for email traffic that are deliberately set up to handle various degrees of sensitive information, and that the work of diplomats all around the world is by its very nature is sensitive, but it’s also outward-facing, and has to be. And there is a role here at the State Department to be communicative, to have dialogue, to foster communication. That’s a big part of who we are. And I can – and I can tell you that everybody involved in that understands the risks and the opportunities of it, and takes it very seriously.
The problem is this indoctrination that you speak of obviously didn’t work when it came to the past secretary, or the hundred or so officials who all contacted her during the course of her tenure, or the dozens of officials who would have known that she wasn’t using a state.gov address or would have known that information that was at least on the borderline was going to a nongovernment account. So that failed across the board, right?
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: BlueAjah
If there had been a real inspector general at the State Dept., he would have made sure she complied with the State Department's protocols. But, alas, Barack Obama intentionally failed to appoint that IG. Why? He evidently didn't have a problem with her hiding. He was either negligent or complicit. I wish somebody in congress would look into that.
QUESTION: Just following up on the internal review that you’ve reopened. Can you say anything more about what exactly the review is focusing on particularly?
MR KIRBY: Well, it’s going to focus on what we said it would focus on at the time when we first talked about it, and that was the degree to which email traffic was properly handled, sensitive – the degree to which email traffic was classified or sensitive at the time it was transmitted, the degree to which it was properly treated as such at the time it was transmitted. And that’s what we said back when – in January, when we had originally intended to start.
QUESTION: And I know you call it a review, this review has – as you said this week, it has the ability to determine possible infractions at the end of the day, whenever it completes.
MR KIRBY: It’s a review into these issues. As a result of information that the review uncovers, there could be outcomes, but the review is to actually determine the degree to which information was handled appropriately, not to determine specific outcomes. There are outcomes that could come from what we learn from the review.
QUESTION: I won’t ask about any of the officials who worked under Secretary Clinton per se, but about the secretary herself, there are some calls from the Hill about stripping her security clearance. Is that – as a former official, albeit the top official in the department, is that something that is even possible as the end of this review?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, without speaking to any individual or to – and certainly not to get ahead of this review, which is now just beginning, obviously, as I said before, the process can result in a variety of employment and/or security clearance outcomes from both current and former employees.
QUESTION: So when you say former employees, that – does that include the former Secretary of State, or is she not actually a former employee since she was essentially the employer?
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate any more. Again, the process could result in a variety of employment and/or security clearance outcomes for current and former employees.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
Based on the recent IG report, and on Kirby's statements in the briefings, I think that the current State Department is not too happy with Hillary right now.
The FBI claims that the State Department is lax and has a system of carelessness with classified information. Let's face it. Hillary's actions have made the entire State Department look like incompetent fools. And I really do not think they are going to take the fall for her. I think they are going to be sure that she takes the blame.