Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:37 PM Apr 2016

WaPo: Evidence Suggests Hillary's Email Monitored By Asian Govt


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/04/was-an-asian-government-reading-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/

Was an Asian government reading Hillary Clinton’s emails in February 2009?

By Stewart Baker April 4 at 6:22 AM

I continue to be fascinated by the very early chapters of the Hillary Clinton homebrew email saga. For one simple reason: the clintonemail.com server apparently didn’t have the digital certificate needed to encrypt communications until late March 2009 — more than two months after the server was up and running, and after Secretary Clinton’s swearing-in on January 22.

Two questions are raised by this timing: First, why didn’t the server have encryption from the start? And second, why did it get encryption in March, at a time when Clinton should have been extraordinarily busy getting up to speed at State, not messing with computer security protocols?

The simplest answer to the first question is that the lack of a certificate was just a mistake. But what about the second? What inspired the Secretary to get an encryption certificate in March when her team hadn’t bothered to get one in January or February?

The likely answer to that question is pretty troubling. There now seems to be a very real probability that Hillary Clinton rushed to install an encryption certificate in March 2009 because the U.S. intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton’s unencrypted messages during her February 16-21, 2009, trip to China, Indonesia, Japan, and S. Korea.
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo: Evidence Suggests Hillary's Email Monitored By Asian Govt (Original Post) berni_mccoy Apr 2016 OP
Interesting. If that is the case revbones Apr 2016 #1
ok....how does this mesh with... grasswire Apr 2016 #2
can you give us a link for that, Berni? grasswire Apr 2016 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author Chasstev365 Apr 2016 #5
Look at the ops name SwampG8r Apr 2016 #7
Sorry, updated. berni_mccoy Apr 2016 #8
And Pagliano's managers at State IT had no idea about the existence of the server. FlatBaroque Apr 2016 #4
Because it's not who you know... dchill Apr 2016 #16
At the very least, this was a case of gross negligence on the part of the State Department. reformist2 Apr 2016 #6
I'm with you... incompetence or malice is the question? GeorgiaPeanuts Apr 2016 #9
"Gross negligence" - when everything she did she did on purpose, knowingly. jmg257 Apr 2016 #11
You mean as defined in 18 USC Sec 793(f)? leveymg Apr 2016 #15
No - I mean as defined here: jmg257 Apr 2016 #20
I read most of the emails nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #13
Yup NWCorona Apr 2016 #22
I know nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #23
And when I read that Sid one NWCorona Apr 2016 #24
Oh wait, I was told that was not the case today nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #25
very plausible amborin Apr 2016 #10
And here's the thing: Hillary's loyalists may not care about this, but independent voters sure will! reformist2 Apr 2016 #14
At the tail end of 2013 they found a couple Asia bugs on the server. leveymg Apr 2016 #12
yeah, we know that prior to the installation of encryption... grasswire Apr 2016 #26
K&R. dchill Apr 2016 #17
The indictment fairy is here Skink Apr 2016 #18
Opinion page garbage MattP Apr 2016 #19
So if the "US Intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton's unencrypted messages" Jitter65 Apr 2016 #21
Logically, they might have done a fast upgrade to the ".gov" system -- IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #27
K&R TheDormouse Apr 2016 #28
Wait, i thought encryption was a bad thing? Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #29
Something something "Manhattan Project against encryption" something somethin VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #30
 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
1. Interesting. If that is the case
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:40 PM
Apr 2016

and she rushed to get the certificate while still not notifying people she was running an off-books email server then it's obvious she was knowingly and blatantly breaking the law.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
2. ok....how does this mesh with...
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:42 PM
Apr 2016

....the presumption that the same server was being used by Bill for foundation business prior to Hillary using it for State business?

Response to grasswire (Reply #3)

SwampG8r

(10,287 posts)
7. Look at the ops name
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:50 PM
Apr 2016

And reconsider your statement.
The op is berni mcoy its easy to co fuse but grasswire meant berni not bernie

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
4. And Pagliano's managers at State IT had no idea about the existence of the server.
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:47 PM
Apr 2016

I am puzzled at why Hillary Clinton is not awaiting a bail hearing right now.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
6. At the very least, this was a case of gross negligence on the part of the State Department.
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:50 PM
Apr 2016

I have to admit, at first I ignored this story. I was kind of like-minded with Bernie when he said, "who cares about her damned e-mails!"

But as time goes by, it just seems so bizarre - so STUPID - to have allowed the communications of the Secretary of State of the US to be conducted on a private server with questionable, and perhaps non-existent, anti-hacker security protections.

What the HELL were they thinking???? Was this really all about Hillary's obsessive need for secrecy???

 

GeorgiaPeanuts

(2,353 posts)
9. I'm with you... incompetence or malice is the question?
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:52 PM
Apr 2016

The Clintons are known for being the least transparent.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
11. "Gross negligence" - when everything she did she did on purpose, knowingly.
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:55 PM
Apr 2016

And Despite being warned.

Gross negligence is starting to seem a bit kind.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
20. No - I mean as defined here:
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:16 PM
Apr 2016

in full awareness or consciousness; deliberately.
"when a journalist knowingly misleads the readers"

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
13. I read most of the emails
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:58 PM
Apr 2016

and in particular 4 caught my eye... they were in the earliest release trove, and SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED, which they later were. When I read them, hubby did as well. We both were quite incredulous that we had just downloaded what should not have been released for 20 to 25 years. That is when I started paying very close attention.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
23. I know
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:30 PM
Apr 2016

my history training said Warning WILL ROBINSON, Warning.

Alas, due to what hubby used to do, we had to sit on them. At this point there is enough in media I could quite possibly start to cover the issue. Right now, for real, working on a time line of this mess.

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
14. And here's the thing: Hillary's loyalists may not care about this, but independent voters sure will!
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:59 PM
Apr 2016

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
12. At the tail end of 2013 they found a couple Asia bugs on the server.
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:58 PM
Apr 2016

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

There was probably Chinese intercepts and some others the whole time going back to 2009. Maybe that was intentional. The only question is who was playing whom?

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
26. yeah, we know that prior to the installation of encryption...
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:02 PM
Apr 2016

....Hillary was warned that her communications had been compromised on her Asia trip.

 

Jitter65

(3,089 posts)
21. So if the "US Intelligence community caught another country reading Clinton's unencrypted messages"
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:22 PM
Apr 2016

why didn't they intervene then??? Surely if this really happened they told the President and the FBI and NSA?

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
27. Logically, they might have done a fast upgrade to the ".gov" system --
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:52 PM
Apr 2016

And sent the "be careful" warning out to everyone, which would have gotten the encryption stuff going on the "private" server.

Not many people pay attention to email addresses - they look at the names/aliases. It's just how our brain processes information. Or the low level people might not have mentioned it because they assumed their bosses already knew about it.

New regime, lots of work trying to get everyone up to speed, lots of chaos, everyone busy, and some Asian government hacked the system...get cracking, folks!

Plausible? Who knows?

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
30. Something something "Manhattan Project against encryption" something somethin
Tue Apr 5, 2016, 07:46 AM
Apr 2016

"won't someone please think of the children" something something something "$hypocritical_statement XOR $lie".

Modus operandi.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WaPo: Evidence Suggests H...