Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gingersnap
    Resident stylistic consultant
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 24058

    #1

    Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server

    Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server
    By MICHAEL BIESECKER and TED BRIDIS
    Jun. 22, 2016 6:27 PM EDT

    FILE - In this March 12, 2012 file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her... Read more

    WASHINGTON (AP) — State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government's own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.

    The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.

    The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server.

    "This should trump all other activities," a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton's private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.

    After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."

    The AP initially reported Wednesday that the emails described security features being turned off on Clinton's own private server, but State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified hours later that the emails described "a series of troubleshooting measures to the department's system — not Secretary Clinton's system — to attempt to remedy the problem."

    The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.

    Clinton has repeatedly denied there is any evidence her private email server ever was breached. Her campaign did not immediately provide comment Wednesday.

    Days after the technical crisis, on Jan. 9, 2011, a State Department IT staffer was forced to shut down Clinton's server because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he wrote, "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min." It was one of several occasions when email access to Clinton's BlackBerry smartphone was disrupted because her private server was down, according to the documents.

    The AP reported last year that in the early morning hours of Aug. 3, 2011, Clinton received infected emails, disguised as speeding tickets from New York. The emails instructed recipients to print the attached tickets. Opening an attachment would have allowed hackers to take over control of a victim's computer.

    In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.

    The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal. The emails released Wednesday were not made available until after the inspector general's office published its report, and Judicial Watch asked a federal judge to force the State Department to turn them over.

    The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton's time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.
    More.

    AP
    "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."
  • Frostbit
    But only once
    • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
    • 22330

    #2
    The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton's time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.

    Does this bother anyone else?
    If it pays, it stays

    Comment

    • Gingersnap
      Resident stylistic consultant
      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
      • 24058

      #3
      Originally posted by Frostbit View Post
      The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton's time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.

      Does this bother anyone else?
      There was a day in this country when these kinds of issues would have ended careers and forced all involved out of power.
      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

      Comment

      • scott
        Go-to Guru
        • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
        • 15799

        #4
        Originally posted by Frostbit View Post
        The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton's time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.

        Does this bother anyone else?
        Only people that weren't going to vote for her anyway. All the Bernie supporters are keeping their conscience clear looking the other way and/or clutching their pearls over Trump.
        "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
        -John Locke

        "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
        -Newman

        "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
        -Newman

        Comment

        • Lady Marva
          Senior Member
          • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
          • 13321

          #5
          Originally posted by Frostbit View Post
          Does this bother anyone else?
          Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.
          The Clintonistas said so.

          Comment

          • Norm dePlume
            Err foil
            • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
            • 14904

            #6
            If you look at the actual emails, the problem they were scrambling to fix included emails from state.gov accounts written to house.gov accounts in which the reply was blocked.



            That problem would have existed regardless of Clinton's email setup.
            Enjoy.

            Comment

            • Novaheart
              Guardian of civilization
              • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
              • 6070

              #7
              Hillary Clinton could be convicted of killing a puppy and a baby, and even if you pinned their eyes open and made them watch the video Democrats would call it a lie. The reason they go silent when you ask for facts is because they don't have any. The reason they scream "RACIST!" or "FAUX NEWS!" at you is because they don't want to hear facts.
              The year's at the spring
              And day's at the morn;
              Morning's at seven;
              The hill-side's dew-pearled;
              The lark's on the wing;
              The snail's on the thorn:
              God's in his heaven—
              All's right with the world!

              Comment

              • Gingersnap
                Resident stylistic consultant
                • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                • 24058

                #8
                Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                If you look at the actual emails, the problem they were scrambling to fix included emails from state.gov accounts written to house.gov accounts in which the reply was blocked.



                That problem would have existed regardless of Clinton's email setup.
                Which is a major reason why she never should have been allowed to have a "set-up". Her problems here didn't end with mangled replies. Her system required that certain security features on the other end be disabled during the period when the problem remained unfixed.

                I dunno about where you work but where I worked we were not allowed to use private servers for any work products. The closest you could you get was using a clone desktop remotely.
                "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                Comment

                • gary m
                  Reprobate
                  • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                  • 8016

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                  Which is a major reason why she never should have been allowed to have a "set-up". Her problems here didn't end with mangled replies. Her system required that certain security features on the other end be disabled during the period when the problem remained unfixed.

                  I dunno about where you work but where I worked we were not allowed to use private servers for any work products. The closest you could you get was using a clone desktop remotely.
                  Where I work, employees and others cannot have anything from their corporate email accounts forwarded to their private smartphones or personal email accounts.
                  Even meeting notice headers that contain only date, place and time are cause for dismissal.

                  Sarbanes-Oxley can get real nasty about non-compliance. Of course, that only affects little people and businesses. Things that most politicians are above.
                  We are so fucked.

                  Comment

                  • Norm dePlume
                    Err foil
                    • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                    • 14904

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                    Which is a major reason why she never should have been allowed to have a "set-up". Her problems here didn't end with mangled replies. Her system required that certain security features on the other end be disabled during the period when the problem remained unfixed.

                    I dunno about where you work but where I worked we were not allowed to use private servers for any work products. The closest you could you get was using a clone desktop remotely.
                    Maybe you didn't understand what I pointed out. The reason the IT guys were temporarily disabling spam filters is in part because Huma sent an email from her state.gov account to a house.gov account and the reply from the house.gov account to the state.gov account was blocked. So that problem existed and required attention completely separate from any clintonemail domain.
                    Enjoy.

                    Comment

                    • scott
                      Go-to Guru
                      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                      • 15799

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                      Maybe you didn't understand what I pointed out. The reason the IT guys were temporarily disabling spam filters is in part because Huma sent an email from her state.gov account to a house.gov account and the reply from the house.gov account to the state.gov account was blocked. So that problem existed and required attention completely separate from any clintonemail domain.
                      Please provide the documentation for your claim that this was only spam filters being modified.
                      "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                      -John Locke

                      "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                      -Newman

                      "Grievance groups are playing King of the Hill."
                      -Newman

                      Comment

                      • Newman
                        Behind the Iron Curtain
                        • Friday, November 1, 2013
                        • 25814

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                        There was a day in this country when these kinds of issues would have ended careers and forced all involved out of power.
                        It's absolutely dumbfounding. It's as if a defiant Dick Nixon were running for president in 1976.

                        How we got to this point is a damn good question. I think Bill Clinton's impeachment had something to do with it. His defenders insisted that his bad behavior could be "compartmentalized," separated from his political talents. Or maybe it started when Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. For Democrats, that was OK. What counted was his liberal ideology and his power as a "lion of the Senate."

                        Maybe it goes back to JFK, a saint after his assassination, but who turns out to have had some disreputable habits. (Now a quaint word, perhaps, disreputable.) What comes first, chicken- or egg-wise: Did a less protective media expose flaws and inadvertently force the public to accept flaws? Or did a general, rising tolerance of eccentricities, so to speak, lead the press to drop the self-imposed censorship that had protected earlier iconic leaders?

                        Or has unrelenting negative campaigning over the years had the counter-intuitive effect of insulating candidates from criticism?
                        Last edited by Newman; Saturday, June 25, 2016, 5:55 AM.
                        • "I'm a hell of a lot smarter than most of you guys." — Joe Biden, at Jesse Jackson's funeral, March 2026.​
                        • "That's all I do in my life. I make deals. I'm really good at it." — President Donald Trump, Oct. 13, 2025.
                        • “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out,” — David Horowitz.
                        • "We [Democrats] are all willing to work with anyone who is serious about doing the work of censoring the American people, and advancing progress."​ — Ayanna Pressley, explaining progressives.
                        • ​​"Florida is where Woke goes to die." — Ron DeSantis.
                        • "No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence." — Nancy Pelosi, explaining Lawfare.
                        • “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”​— Ben Franklin, who got it right.
                        • "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there." — Elizabeth Warren, explaining socialism.
                        • "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn't originally a climate thing at all.... We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing." — Saikat Chakrabarti, then AOC's Chief of Staff.

                        Comment

                        • Norm dePlume
                          Err foil
                          • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                          • 14904

                          #13
                          Originally posted by scott View Post
                          Please provide the documentation for your claim that this was only spam filters being modified.
                          Where did I say "only"? I said they were disabling spam filters, because the email (which I already linked to) says they were disabling spam filters. It's the same email chain from which the OP got their juicy quotes. They might have done all sorts of shit that isn't mentioned in the email. I only know what the article's source says.

                          After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."
                          Well, here is that exact line in the email and the immediately preceding parts of the email chain:





                          You're welcome.
                          Enjoy.

                          Comment

                          • Frostbit
                            But only once
                            • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                            • 22330

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                            Where did I say "only"? I said they were disabling spam filters, because the email (which I already linked to) says they were disabling spam filters. It's the same email chain from which the OP got their juicy quotes. They might have done all sorts of shit that isn't mentioned in the email. I only know what the article's source says.



                            Well, here is that exact line in the email and the immediately preceding parts of the email chain:





                            You're welcome.
                            I wonder why people involved in this are pleading the fifth when questioned? It's obvious nothing wrong was done.
                            If it pays, it stays

                            Comment

                            • Norm dePlume
                              Err foil
                              • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                              • 14904

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Newman View Post
                              It's absolutely dumbfounding. It's as if a defiant Dick Nixon were running for president in 1976.

                              How we got to this point is a damn good question. I think Bill Clinton's impeachment had something to do with it. His defenders insisted that his bad behavior could be "compartmentalized," separated from his political talents. Or maybe it started when Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. For Democrats, that was OK. What counted was his liberal ideology and his power as a "lion of the Senate."

                              Maybe it goes back to JFK, a saint after his assassination, but who turns out to have had some disreputable habits. (Now a quaint word, perhaps, disreputable.) What comes first, chicken- or egg-wise: Did a less protective media expose flaws and inadvertently force the public to accept flaws? Or did a general, rising tolerance of eccentricities, so to speak, lead the press to drop the self-imposed censorship that had protected earlier iconic leaders?

                              Or has unrelenting negative campaigning over the years had the counter-intuitive effect of insulating candidates from criticism?
                              And Thomas Jefferson fucked his servant girl.
                              Enjoy.

                              Comment

                              Working...