{"id":147313,"date":"2016-03-20T12:46:14","date_gmt":"2016-03-20T16:46:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.designerchildren.com\/hillary-clinton-has-an-nsa-problem-observer\/"},"modified":"2016-03-20T12:46:14","modified_gmt":"2016-03-20T16:46:14","slug":"hillary-clinton-has-an-nsa-problem-observer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/nsa-2\/hillary-clinton-has-an-nsa-problem-observer\/","title":{"rendered":"Hillary Clinton Has an NSA Problem &#124; Observer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>      Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State      Hillary Clinton speaks during her primary night gathering on      March 15, 2016 in West Palm Beach, Florida. Hillary Clinton      defeated rival U.S. Sen Bernie Sanders in the Florida, Ohio      and North Carolina primaries.    <\/p>\n<p>    For a year now, Hillary Clintons misuse of email during her    tenure as secretary of state has hung like a dark cloud over    her presidential campaign. As     I told you months ago, email-gate isnt going away, despite    the best efforts of Team Clinton to make it disappear. Instead,    the scandal has gotten worse, with never-ending revelations of    apparent misconduct by Ms. Clinton and her staff. At this    point, email-gate may be the only thing standing between Ms.    Clintonand the White House this November.  <\/p>\n<p>    Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation examination    of email-gate, pursuant to provisions of the Espionage Act,    poses a major threat to Ms. Clintons presidential aspirations.    However, even if the FBI recommends prosecution of her or    members of her inner circle for mishandling of classified    informationwhich is something the politically unconnected    routinely do face prosecution forits by    no means certain that the Department of Justice will follow the    FBIs lead.  <\/p>\n<p>    What the DoJ decides to do with email-gateis ultimately a    question of politics as much as justice. Ms. Clintons recent statement on her potential    prosecution, its not going to happen, then refusing to    address the question at all in a recent debate, led to    speculation about a backroom deal with the White House to    shield Ms. Clintonfrom prosecution as long as Mr. Obama    is in the Oval Office. After mid-January, however, all bets    would be off. In that case, winning the White House herself    could be an urgent matter of avoiding prosecution for Ms.    Clinton.  <\/p>\n<p>    That said, if the DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau    recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in    Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated. The    FBI would be angry that its exhaustive investigation was    thwarted by dirty deals between Democrats. In that case, a    great deal of Clintonian dirty laundry could wind up in the    hands of the press, habitual mainstream media     covering for the Clintons notwithstanding, perhaps having a    major impact on the presidential race this year.  <\/p>\n<p>    TheFBI isnt the only powerful federal agency that    Hillary Clinton needs to worry about as she plots her path to    the White House between scandals and leaks. For years, she has    been on the bad side of the National Security Agency, Americas    most important intelligence agency, as revealed by    just-released State Department documents obtained by Judicial    Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.  <\/p>\n<p>    What did she not want put on a government system, where    security people might see it? I sure wish Id asked about it    back in 2009.  <\/p>\n<p>    The documents, though redacted, detail a    bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset    of her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who    had gotten hooked on her Blackberry during her failed 2008    presidential bid, according to a top State Department security    official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.  <\/p>\n<p>    That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clintons main    office space at Foggy Bottom was actually a Secure Compartment    Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced skiff) by    insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus    information. In most Washington, D.C., offices with a SCIF,    which has to be certified as fully secure from human or    technical penetration, thats where you check Top-Secret email,    read intelligence reports and conduct classified meetings that    must be held inside such protected spaces.  <\/p>\n<p>    But personal electronic devicesyour cellphone, your    Blackberrycan never be brought into a SCIF. They represent a    serious technical threat that is actually employed by many    intelligence agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize    it, taking remote control over a handheld device, then using it    to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent    spy service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance    deviceon you, the userthat also happens to provide phone    service and Internet access.  <\/p>\n<p>    As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be    locked up before you enter any SCIF. Taking such items into one    represents a serious security violation. And Ms.    Clintonand her staff really hated that. Not even one    month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms. Clinton    and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were    accustomed to having their personal Blackberrys with them at    all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and that was    simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.  <\/p>\n<p>    This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton    to the NSA, whose Information Assurance Directorate (IAD for    short:     see here for an explanation of Agency organization) secures    the sensitive communications of many U.S. government entities,    from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House    communications, to the classified codes that control our    nuclear weapons.  <\/p>\n<p>    The contents of Sid Blumenthals June 8, 2011, email to Hillary    Clintonto her personal, unclassified accountwere based on    highly sensitive NSA information.  <\/p>\n<p>    IAD had recently created a special, custom-made secure Blackberry    for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton    wanted one for herself. However, making the new presidents    personal Blackberry had been a time-consuming and expensive    exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton    with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be    clearly demonstrated need.  <\/p>\n<p>    And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with    Ms. Clinton checking her personal email inside her office SCIF.    Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer    terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state    could log into her own email anytime she wanted to right from    her desk.  <\/p>\n<p>    But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal    email on her Blackberry: she did not want to sit down at a    computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary    Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team    Clinton kept pressing the point, We were politely told to shut    up and color by IAD, explained the state security official.  <\/p>\n<p>    The State Department has not released the full document trail    here, so the complete story remains unknown to the public.    However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the    kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys.    It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff, he explained,    the whole rules are for other people act that I remembered    from the 90s. Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her    personal email on an office computer, like every other    government employee less senior than the president, seems a    germane question, given what a major scandal    email-gateturned out to be. What did she not want put on    a government system, where security people might see it? the    former NSA official asked, adding, I wonder now, and I sure    wish Id asked about it back in 2009.  <\/p>\n<p>    Hes not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about    what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were really    up toand why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal    laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified    information. This has come to a head thanks to Team Clintons    gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.  <\/p>\n<p>    As I    explained in this column in January, one of<br \/>\nthe most    controversial of Ms. Clintons emails released by the State    Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011,    to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clintons        unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private    intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an    amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically    a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country.    Mr. Blumenthals information came from a top-ranking source    with direct access to Sudans top military and intelligence    officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken    place only 24hours before.  <\/p>\n<p>    To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this    unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade.    In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had    enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when    he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the    Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open,    unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clintononly one day    later.  <\/p>\n<p>    NSA officials were appalled by the State Departments release    of this email, since it bore all the hallmarks of Agency    reporting. Back in early Januarywhen    I reported this, I was confident that Mr. Blumenthals    information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on    my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one    veteran agency official told me it was NSA information with at    least 90 percent confidence.  <\/p>\n<p>    Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of    Sid Blumenthals June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent    to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on    highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this    compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthals highly detailed    account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of    high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived    from NSA intelligence.  <\/p>\n<p>    Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four    different NSA reports, all of them classified Top Secret \/    Special Intelligence. Worse, at least one of those reports was    issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to    extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted    conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).    GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or    SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in        another series of her unclassified emails.  <\/p>\n<p>    Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt    that Mr. Blumenthals information came from their reports.    Its word-for-word, verbatim copying, one of them explained.    In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA    report that was classified Top Secret \/ Special Intelligence.  <\/p>\n<p>    How Mr.Blumenthal got his hands on this information is    the key question, and theres no firm answer yet. The fact that    he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA    reportsnone of which he was supposed to have any access toand    pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only    hours after NSA released them in Top Secret \/ Special    Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as    well as illegal,was going on.  <\/p>\n<p>    Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA    senior official who was Mr. Blumenthals intelligence fixer,    his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before    email-gatebecame front-page news. However, he, too, had    left federal service years before and should not have had any    access to current NSA reports.  <\/p>\n<p>    There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and    her staff at Foggy Bottom were up to, including Sidney    Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization,    despite his lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal    got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting is only the first    question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open    channels is another question. So is: How did nobody on    Secretary Clintons staff notice that this highly detailed    reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why    did the State Department see fit to release this email,    unredacted, to the public?  <\/p>\n<p>    These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and    the FBI right now. All of them merit serious examination. Their    answers may determine the political fate of Hillary Clintonand    who gets elected our next president in November.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the original post here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/observer.com\/2016\/03\/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem\/\" title=\"Hillary Clinton Has an NSA Problem | Observer\">Hillary Clinton Has an NSA Problem | Observer<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during her primary night gathering on March 15, 2016 in West Palm Beach, Florida. Hillary Clinton defeated rival U.S. Sen Bernie Sanders in the Florida, Ohio and North Carolina primaries.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/nsa-2\/hillary-clinton-has-an-nsa-problem-observer\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94881],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nsa-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147313"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}