Conservative Blogger
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Clinton tried to change rules to use BlackBerry in secure facility for classified information
Less than a month after becoming secretary of state, and registering the personal email domain that she would use exclusively for government business, Hillary Clinton’s team aggressively pursued changes to existing State Department security protocols so she could use her BlackBerry in secure facilities for classified information, according to new documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
“Anyone who has any appreciation at all of security, you don’t ask a question like that,” cybersecurity analyst Morgan Wright told Fox News. “It is contempt for the system, contempt for the rules that are designed to protect the exact kind of information that was exposed through this email set up. “
Current and former intelligence officials grimaced when asked by Fox News about the use of wireless communications devices, such as a BlackBerry, in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) emphasizing its use would defeat the purpose of the secure facility, and it is standard practice to leave all electronics outside.
A former State Department employee familiar with the Clinton request emphasized security personnel at the time thought the BlackBerry was only for unclassified material, adding their concerns would have been magnified if they had known Clinton's email account also held classified material.
“When you allow devices like this into a SCIF, you can allow the bad guys to listen in,” Wright added.
A February 17, 2009 email marked SECRET and cleared through the NSA says, “Ms. Mills described the requirement as chiefly driven by Secretary Clinton, who does not use standard computer equipment but relies exclusively on her Blackberry for emailing and remaining in contact on her schedule etc. Ideally all members of her suite would be allowed to use Blackberries for communication in the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility)”
Cheryl Mills was Clinton’s chief of staff from 2009-13.
The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also show that a specialized NSA team was brought in to assess the vulnerabilities and feasibility of using wireless communications, including within a secure facility.
The NSA State Department liaison, whose name was withheld, told Mills in a now highly redacted email: “Sometimes the distinction between what can be done and what is, or is not, recommended to be done differ; this is one of those instances. (State Department Diplomatic Security) DS’s response illustrates their level of concern based on their extensive professional expertise. “
Another memo from March 2009, obtained by Judicial Watch through its FOIA lawsuit, from Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell to Mills explicitly warned, “the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row [seventh floor executive offices] considerably outweigh their convenience.” Clinton has claimed she used the personal account and BlackBerry for convenience.
Clinton never used a State Department issued BlackBerry. It is not clear from the documents whether Clinton and her team went ahead and used their BlackBerrys in SCIFs despite the concerns, including those of the NSA. Though a state department official said "no waiver allowing PDAs within Mahogany Row was granted.".
A February 18 2009 email from the State Department’s Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Donald R. Reid, states “…once she (Clinton) got the hang of it, she was hooked, now every day, she feels hamstrung because she has to lock up her BB up. She does go out several times a day to an office they have crafted for her outside the SCIF and plays email catch-up. Cheryl Mills and others who are dedicated BB addicts are frustrated because they too are not near their desktop very often during the working day…”
The reference to a secondary office for Clinton appears to conflict with a February statement from the State Department that no stand-alone computer was set up outside Clinton’s main office on the executive floor, known as Mahogany Row, to check her personal account.
On February 25, Fox News pressed the State Department spokesman about a January 2009 email, also obtained by Judicial Watch, between Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and then Clinton chief of staff Mills where Kennedy said it was a “great idea” to setup a stand-alone PC for Clinton to check her email.
The State Department said Wednesday no computer was set up but confirmed there was a space created to accommodate Clinton's personal email use. "There is an area dedicated to supporting the secretary outside but in the immediate vicinity of the secretary's secure office. Secretary Clinton, as with anyone, could use such non-SCIF spaces to check personal devices.," a State Department official said.
Clinton did not use a government-issued BlackBerry that was certified as secure for government use. Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy recently told the Benghazi Select Committee that he knew about Clinton's personal account from the earliest days, but did not understand the extent of its use, even though he sent State Department business to Clinton via the Clintonemail account.
In January 2009, Clinton signed at least two non-disclosure agreements in which she promised to protect classified information. Since then, more than 2,100 emails containing classified information have been identified, as well as 22 Top Secret that are too damaging to national security to release.
Earlier this week, Judicial Watch presented the federal court in Washington with a list of 7 Clinton aides it wants to question under oath about Clinton’s use of a private email sever when she was secretary of state.
5 North Carolina deputies disciplined in connection with Trump campaign rally
The Cumberland County Sheriff’s office announced Wednesday it disciplined five deputies who it says watched and did nothing when a protester being escorted from a Fayetteville, North Carolina Donald Trump rally was punched by a Trump supporter.
Three of the deputies were demoted and were also suspended without pay for five days while the other two were suspended without pay for three days, the sheriff’s office said in a statement. All five deputies face one year of probation.
In a statement, Sheriff Earl “Moose” Butler said the deputies faced disciplinary action for "unsatisfactory performance and failing to discharge the duties and policies of the office of the sheriff."
"The actions of the deputies and their failures to act in situations such as that which occurred during the Trump rally at the Crown Coliseum have never been and will never be tolerated under the policies of this office," he said.
Several of the disciplined deputies were involved with the confrontation of a man who went on a deadly shooting spree killing family members and assaulting deputies with an assault rifle in July 2014.
The sheriff’s office said their actions in that situation factored into their punishment.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
On Monday, authorities said there wasn’t enough evidence to press charges against Trump for his behavior in connection with the violent altercation.
In a statement issued Monday night, the sheriff’s office said legal counsel advised and Butler agreed that the evidence doesn't meet the requisites of North Carolina law to support a conviction for inciting a riot.
Authorities have already charged a rally attendee with assault, disorderly conduct and communicating threats after he was caught on video hitting a man being led out by deputies at the event in Fayetteville.
At one point during the rally, Trump described a previous event in which a protester traded punches with his supporters. Trump told the audience: "They started punching back. It was a beautiful thing."
In a statement, Trump's campaign said, "the arena was rented for a private event, paid for by the campaign and these people attended with the intent to cause trouble.
They were only there to agitate and anger the crowd. It is the protesters and agitators who are in violation, not Mr. Trump or the campaign."
The new battle cry: Why can't the media 'stop' Trump?
 |
As Donald Trump’s detractors grow increasingly loud and desperate, they are aiming their ire at a new target:
The media.
Trump must be stopped, they declare, and it’s the media’s mission to halt him in his tracks.
It’s an argument that fundamentally misreads the role of the press. And it is being made by some generally smart people who are so apoplectic over the prospect of a Trump nomination or Trump presidency that they don’t understand why journalists haven’t convinced the country to despise The Donald the way they do.
The new rallying cry is an outgrowth of earlier laments that the media “created” Trump or “enabled” Trump or “rolled over” for Trump, as if that, even if true, is responsible for him winning 19 Republican contests.
Nearly 7-1/2 years after Barack Obama’s election, we still hear a familiar refrain on the right: If only the media had properly vetted him, he would never have made it to the White House. Never mind that Obama managed to beat the Clinton machine in his first campaign and then to get himself reelected. The 2008 coverage of Obama was indeed too soft, but by 2012 the country certainly knew what it was getting.
The current complaints center on the fantasy notion that news organizations have failed to aggressively report on Trump.
But I have read hundreds of articles, and watched thousands of segments, about Trump’s business setbacks; his casino bankruptcies; allegations of mob ties and racial discrimination; the use of foreign workers to staff his properties and make his merchandise; how he gave large sums to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton; how he changed from liberal positions on abortion and health care; even accusations that he cheats at golf.
I have consumed many fact-checking efforts about erroneous or questionable statements he has made, about how much Medicare spends on prescription drugs, or having watched reports of thousands of Muslims celebrating on 9/11 in New Jersey.
I have read or seen a long line of commentators accusing Trump of being racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic, of being ignorant on policy, of encouraging violence.
And yet he keeps winning primaries. The negative media attention and fact-checking attempts bounce off him like rubber arrows.
There are limits, it turns out, to the mighty power of the press. Voters don’t much trust the media these days, and they get to decide which candidates they like.
Of course Trump has received disproportionate air time of his rallies and speeches in a way that is unfair to his rivals. But he also subjects himself to seemingly endless rounds of interviews—including the morning shows yesterday--taking all manner of journalistic questions in a way that his opponents do not. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has gone about 100 days without holding a news conference.
Trump, for his part, continues to trash the press. Even after his big victories Tuesday night, he complained about one pundit’s comments and took a whack at the “disgusting” reporters in the room. His campaign also yanked the credentials of a Politico writer who had written a one-sided and harshly negative piece about his campaign manager.
This sort of thing is hardly unknown in politics, but it’s small ball that consumes too much of Trump’s time. As he pivots toward a more unifying tone, he might try to rise above the daily cable chatter.
I am not pro-Trump or anti-Trump. I am a journalist. And journalists who aren’t in the opinion business are supposed to be fair. They often fall short, of course, but it is not a “failure” on their part that Trump is on his way to the Republican nomination—that is, unless you’re a Trump-hater who thinks it’s our duty to knock out the candidate you so detest.
Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor at Dartmouth, is among those faulting the press:
“Trump’s rise represents a failure in American parties, media, and civic institutions - and they're continuing to fail right now.
“Shockingly few public figures and elites are defending the norms of public debate and restraint from violence that Trump is bulldozing.”
It’s a “failure” because he thinks Trump is a menace and that the press has somehow overlooked that.
The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, who is consistently tough on both sides, is appalled by the Trump candidacy:
“I overestimated the media. My profession is no longer a trusted arbiter of the truth, which means the country lacks a common set of facts around which to argue. A broken business model makes media companies desperate for clicks and ratings, which makes news leaders vulnerable to Trump’s deal-with-the-devil bravado. You can’t talk to a journalist today without hearing about the shrinking of their newsrooms—in both size and mission.”
It’s true that massive layoffs have diminished investigative reporting, and that Trump drives clicks and ratings. But you can only describe his coverage as dealing with the devil if you think he’s the devil.
Cokie Roberts, the onetime ABC reporter and Sunday host, writes with her husband Steve:
“Can Donald Trump be stopped short of the Republican nomination? Probably not. But the rational wing of the party has to try — quickly and forcefully — to make that happen.”
This prompted an NPR executive to arrange an on-air interview in which Roberts explained herself, since the network’s journalists aren’t supposed to support or oppose any candidate. But Cokie isn’t bound by those rules because she’s listed as a commentator.
From the left, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept updates his argument that journalists are too passive and hung up on balance.
He says that “little journalistic alarm over Trump is expressed. That’s because the rules of large media outlets — venerating faux objectivity over truth along with every other civic value — prohibit the sounding of any alarms. Under this framework of corporate journalism, to denounce Trump, or even to sound alarms about the dark forces he’s exploiting and unleashing, would not constitute journalism. To the contrary, such behavior is regarded as a violation of journalism. Such denunciations are scorned as opinion, activism, and bias: all the values that large media-owning corporations have posited as the antithesis of journalism in order to defang and neuter it as an adversarial force.”
Leaving aside Greenwald’s contempt for “corporate journalism,” there is hardly a shortage of opinion-mongering in print, online and on the air. Commentators on the left and the right, united against Trump, have likened him to George Wallace and Adolf Hitler. That certainly constitutes sounding the alarm.
As for the avalanche of Trump coverage in the rest of the media, it’s hard to argue that people aren’t getting enough information--including lots of negative information--to make a decision.
At the heart of these accusations of media failure is the notion that if they were just more hostile, the dumb readers and viewers would see Donald Trump for the clear and present danger that has so unnerved his critics.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
The media.
Trump must be stopped, they declare, and it’s the media’s mission to halt him in his tracks.
It’s an argument that fundamentally misreads the role of the press. And it is being made by some generally smart people who are so apoplectic over the prospect of a Trump nomination or Trump presidency that they don’t understand why journalists haven’t convinced the country to despise The Donald the way they do.
The new rallying cry is an outgrowth of earlier laments that the media “created” Trump or “enabled” Trump or “rolled over” for Trump, as if that, even if true, is responsible for him winning 19 Republican contests.
Nearly 7-1/2 years after Barack Obama’s election, we still hear a familiar refrain on the right: If only the media had properly vetted him, he would never have made it to the White House. Never mind that Obama managed to beat the Clinton machine in his first campaign and then to get himself reelected. The 2008 coverage of Obama was indeed too soft, but by 2012 the country certainly knew what it was getting.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
But I have read hundreds of articles, and watched thousands of segments, about Trump’s business setbacks; his casino bankruptcies; allegations of mob ties and racial discrimination; the use of foreign workers to staff his properties and make his merchandise; how he gave large sums to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton; how he changed from liberal positions on abortion and health care; even accusations that he cheats at golf.
I have consumed many fact-checking efforts about erroneous or questionable statements he has made, about how much Medicare spends on prescription drugs, or having watched reports of thousands of Muslims celebrating on 9/11 in New Jersey.
I have read or seen a long line of commentators accusing Trump of being racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic, of being ignorant on policy, of encouraging violence.
And yet he keeps winning primaries. The negative media attention and fact-checking attempts bounce off him like rubber arrows.
There are limits, it turns out, to the mighty power of the press. Voters don’t much trust the media these days, and they get to decide which candidates they like.
Of course Trump has received disproportionate air time of his rallies and speeches in a way that is unfair to his rivals. But he also subjects himself to seemingly endless rounds of interviews—including the morning shows yesterday--taking all manner of journalistic questions in a way that his opponents do not. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has gone about 100 days without holding a news conference.
Trump, for his part, continues to trash the press. Even after his big victories Tuesday night, he complained about one pundit’s comments and took a whack at the “disgusting” reporters in the room. His campaign also yanked the credentials of a Politico writer who had written a one-sided and harshly negative piece about his campaign manager.
This sort of thing is hardly unknown in politics, but it’s small ball that consumes too much of Trump’s time. As he pivots toward a more unifying tone, he might try to rise above the daily cable chatter.
I am not pro-Trump or anti-Trump. I am a journalist. And journalists who aren’t in the opinion business are supposed to be fair. They often fall short, of course, but it is not a “failure” on their part that Trump is on his way to the Republican nomination—that is, unless you’re a Trump-hater who thinks it’s our duty to knock out the candidate you so detest.
Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor at Dartmouth, is among those faulting the press:
“Trump’s rise represents a failure in American parties, media, and civic institutions - and they're continuing to fail right now.
“Shockingly few public figures and elites are defending the norms of public debate and restraint from violence that Trump is bulldozing.”
It’s a “failure” because he thinks Trump is a menace and that the press has somehow overlooked that.
The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, who is consistently tough on both sides, is appalled by the Trump candidacy:
“I overestimated the media. My profession is no longer a trusted arbiter of the truth, which means the country lacks a common set of facts around which to argue. A broken business model makes media companies desperate for clicks and ratings, which makes news leaders vulnerable to Trump’s deal-with-the-devil bravado. You can’t talk to a journalist today without hearing about the shrinking of their newsrooms—in both size and mission.”
It’s true that massive layoffs have diminished investigative reporting, and that Trump drives clicks and ratings. But you can only describe his coverage as dealing with the devil if you think he’s the devil.
Cokie Roberts, the onetime ABC reporter and Sunday host, writes with her husband Steve:
“Can Donald Trump be stopped short of the Republican nomination? Probably not. But the rational wing of the party has to try — quickly and forcefully — to make that happen.”
This prompted an NPR executive to arrange an on-air interview in which Roberts explained herself, since the network’s journalists aren’t supposed to support or oppose any candidate. But Cokie isn’t bound by those rules because she’s listed as a commentator.
From the left, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept updates his argument that journalists are too passive and hung up on balance.
He says that “little journalistic alarm over Trump is expressed. That’s because the rules of large media outlets — venerating faux objectivity over truth along with every other civic value — prohibit the sounding of any alarms. Under this framework of corporate journalism, to denounce Trump, or even to sound alarms about the dark forces he’s exploiting and unleashing, would not constitute journalism. To the contrary, such behavior is regarded as a violation of journalism. Such denunciations are scorned as opinion, activism, and bias: all the values that large media-owning corporations have posited as the antithesis of journalism in order to defang and neuter it as an adversarial force.”
Leaving aside Greenwald’s contempt for “corporate journalism,” there is hardly a shortage of opinion-mongering in print, online and on the air. Commentators on the left and the right, united against Trump, have likened him to George Wallace and Adolf Hitler. That certainly constitutes sounding the alarm.
As for the avalanche of Trump coverage in the rest of the media, it’s hard to argue that people aren’t getting enough information--including lots of negative information--to make a decision.
At the heart of these accusations of media failure is the notion that if they were just more hostile, the dumb readers and viewers would see Donald Trump for the clear and present danger that has so unnerved his critics.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
What happens to delegates won by Rubio, other ex-candidates?
With Marco Rubio dropping out of the Republican presidential race Tuesday, the Florida senator leaves a large cache of delegates behind. So what happens to them, and the delegates of other former candidates, at the convention in Cleveland?
The short answer is: It varies from state to state, but the Republican Party leaves enough wiggle room that the delegates of former candidates could end up being a factor in July.
"An inbound delegate is worth their weight in gold," Rick Wilson, a GOP strategist, told FoxNews.com. "It's hard to speculate and there's a lot going on right now."
Rubio, in suspending his campaign after his home-state Florida loss, leaves 169 delegates behind. Ben Carson accrued eight delegates before he dropped out of the race, while Jeb Bush picked up four. Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul each picked up one in Iowa.
And if either Ted Cruz or John Kasich drop out in the weeks ahead -- and Donald Trump still has not clinched the nomination with the necessary 1,237 delegates -- additional zombie delegates could be in play in Cleveland.
And they could hold sway.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
They don't necessarily have to gravitate toward the front-runner at a contested convention, or, in the case of Rubio's delegates, the candidate the Florida senator may ultimately choose to endorse.
They would become essentially free agents, prizes to be wooed by the candidates duking it out in Cleveland.
However some states bind their delegates to the first ballot no matter what.
In Tennessee, delegates are bound for two rounds of voting, while in Iowa, Texas, Virginia, Montana, Nevada, Puerto Rico and Washington, candidates are bound for at least one round of voting whether or not the candidate has withdrawn.
In South Carolina, delegates are bound to the candidate for the first ballot. However, if the winner is not nominated, they are bound to the candidate who finished second or third in the state.
The various state laws mean that while some of the delegates can already peel off to other candidates, many would have to wait until after a first ballot in order to be able to vote for another candidate still in the race.
It remains unclear whether front-runner Trump might be able to reach 1,237 delegates before the convention and avoid this drama. He currently has 661; Ted Cruz has 406; and John Kasich has 142.
Those, such as Kasich, who are banking on the prospect of a contested convention, where the delegates of ex-candidates and other factors could be in play, see a blueprint in past races dating back decades.
Since 1880, there have been eight contested GOP conventions and in five of those, the eventual winner did not go into the convention with a plurality of delegates.
In the 1976 Republican convention, it was the unbound delegates moving toward President Gerald Ford instead of Ronald Reagan that handed Ford the nomination that year. Ford held a slight lead going into the convention, but was shy of an outright majority.
In part by using the power of the White House, with promises of visits and patronage to woo over delegates, Ford won the nomination on the first ballot, by a slim 60 votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
-
What's the role of government? To one award-winning academic, it's discrimination according to race. On February 9th, Mic...
