Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillary used unsecure phone and fax for sensitive communiations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    As an aside, Judicial watch may be a "hack group", but they aren't the ones whom have been repeatedly caught lying and then admonished by the Court in the ongoing litigation. JW is the most honest player in that dispute.

    Regardless, I agree there are other ways to discuss secure information. The point of the matter is Hillary's lack of concern with secure matters. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to assume they were discussing a secure matter and when it couldn't be done safely, Hillary ignored the security protocol and said call her home number. It is about her judgment, not whether the conversation took place.
    No, it's not safe to assume that, there is no reason at all to assume that. Saying call my home number is not ignoring any protocol, it simple means call me. They could have had multiple subjects they wanted to discus, some of which required a secure line. No reason not to call unsecure and discus what they could. Simple and common sense.

    Once again, assumptions and make believe because it's what you want it to be, as opposed to what we know it it be.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      And it failed.

      You missed my point, there are lots of ways to discuss a matter in the clear when secure is NOT available.

      So we have a post of a partisan hack group, Judicial Watch, on a partisan hack website that says nothing and implies a lot knowing that it's followers and readers will fill in the missing actual facts with bits from their imagination. Hence my original post.
      If this cropped up out of the blue, and wasn't in the larger context of Hillary's blatant and flagrant violation of State Department rules regarding electronic communications in general... Something that IS obvious... I agree.
      But, because she did flagrantly and continuously violate communications policy I'd say its another indication that she ignored those policies, didn't practice any sort of security or secure handling of classified or sensitive material and instead, she did what she damn well pleased.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        No, it's not safe to assume that, there is no reason at all to assume that. Saying call my home number is not ignoring any protocol, it simple means call me. They could have had multiple subjects they wanted to discus, some of which required a secure line. No reason not to call unsecure and discus what they could. Simple and common sense.

        Once again, assumptions and make believe because it's what you want it to be, as opposed to what we know it it be.


        You realize that your are dismissing us for making assumptions and relying on your own.
        If the communication wasn't intended to be secure, one wonders why the assistant went tried to have the secure line fixed. Rather than just call Hillary, she went to "ops" to address the problem. She then informed Hillary the only solution was to have a "face to face". Odd she would suggest that to discuss something of no importance.
        Of course she went to that trouble to engage in a non confidential discussion.
        I would prefer to rely on a logical interpretation of the events than simply an assumption.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X