Clinton E-Mail Use Violated Rules, State Department Audit Finds

[SillyAmerican]

She broke a "rule" not a "law".  Nothing is gonna happen.

The Federal Records Act, which the State Department says she violated, is a federal law. That's ridiculous spin right there.

And I can't believe her supporters are gonna use the argument "well, OTHER secretaries have done the same thing!" and therefore she's in the right and should get only a slap on the wrist. Gimme a break.

The shifting landscape of Hillary Clinton:

   "I did nothing wrong..."

   "I only did what other secretaries did..."

   "I broke a rule, not a law..."

   "I can run the country from federal prison..."

Who says Hillary can't evolve?

[SillyAmerican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/25/state-department-deals-death-blow-republican-partys-clinton-email-scandal.html

Also from that link:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did other Secretaries of State create their own e-mail servers to get around record retention and disclosure laws?  I don't think so.

If you are talking "motivation", then can you prove that her intention was to "get around record retention and disclosure laws"? I don't think you can, because her intention was convenience.

Yes, and despite what you might believe, doing things like setting up a private server because the Secretary of State's convenience is considered of primary importance, circumventing record retention and disclosure laws in order to accommodate the Secretary of State's convenience, putting the Secretary's convenience above possible national security concerns, these are things which give many people pause. I realize that Hillary supporters want to paint this as completely inconsequential, but I'll wait until we hear from the FBI folks whether or not that position is reasonable.

[SillyAmerican]

Per the article posted under the title What the new inspector general report on Hillary Clinton's emails actually says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Comments regarding either or both of the criticisms mentioned in the article?

[SillyAmerican]

Yes, and despite what you might believe, doing things like setting up a private server because the Secretary of State's convenience is considered of primary importance, circumventing record retention and disclosure laws in order to accommodate the Secretary of State's convenience, putting the Secretary's convenience above possible national security concerns, these are things which give many people pause. I realize that Hillary supporters want to paint this as completely inconsequential, but I'll wait until we hear from the FBI folks whether or not that position is reasonable.

Please wait all you like. I'll bet if a white male did this there would be nothing to it.

But it's Hillary Clinton, a "Clinton" and a " female". She is a reckless, stupid, self-serving, corrupt, old, prune who wears pantsuits, is married to a rapist womanizer, is a liar and....what else?

Boring. We've already heard it all.

But she is likely to be the next President, and hopefully people will appreciate her work when she gets in office. People seem to like the unpredictability of the white male Trump, but not so with the white female candidate. Every tiny little flaw gets examined until blue in the face. Trump gets a pass over and over and over for his outrageous behavior. That's also boring.

Poor Hillary. She's obviously persecuted simply because she's a woman, and simply because her name is "Clinton". There's obviously no other reason for her problems.

Oh, but wait: Steve Linick leveled two broad sets of criticisms at Hillary Clinton, the first related to records management policies and the second related to potential security risks. Do these criticisms show up because she's a female? Do these show up because her name is "Clinton"? Or do these show up because Hillary Clinton feels herself to be above the rules, above pesky policies, and above inconvenient security concerns?

Sorry to continue to bore you with all of these inconsequential concerns. And yeah, I'll continue to wait on Comey and the FBI, but I don't think I'll have to wait for very much longer.

[SillyAmerican]

Also, a little troubling in this report is how much of it is a Hillary roast. The authors have to be aware of the presidential campaign going on. One of the lead investigators is a former Grassley staffer. One major area of concern is that from the facts hereby presented, Clinton (a) e-mailed with dozens, if not hundreds of State Department staffers on her private e-mail address, (b) low level IT staffers were aware she had a private e-mail server and that an external consultant was working on it, and (c) the head of the department that oversees the CIO and DS's departments was aware of it, and (d) "many" members of administrative bureaucratic departments sent e-mail to her server,

YET

Both the CIO an DS deny have approved the server, or being aware of the "scope" of her use of the server. So low-level IT staff, the boss of CIO and DS, were aware of her e-mail server, but the CIO and DS were not aware of it for four years (despite knowing she had a clintonemail.com domain)? Isn't this something the OIG should have been concerned about? After all, it doesn't shy away from calling out staff members in other areas of the report. There's no evidence OIG ever pressed the CIO and DS if they ever attempted to find out more about Clinton's e-mail situation, and if not, why not.

This is the equivalent of a traffic cop saying, "I was never consulted about her speeding, and if she had asked I would have said she shouldn't speed," yet sitting there every day as she drives by at 70 mph. Now news reports are making it seem like her private e-mail situation was some kind of secret. Hence I am concerned this report is not fair and balanced, and emphasizes the negative with respect to SoS. But in doing so, it fails to hold the CIO and DS to account. Of course, these two individuals also have their own reputations to protect so they will minimize their knowledge of the situation and claim in retrospect to be as conservative as possible. But political appointees are not always aware of the technical issues or the details of compliance, so these two do have an obligation, if they become aware of any serious breach of security, to raise it.

There is no evidence OIG ever attempted to pursue these questions. This raises the worry that OIG was not impartial.

EDIT: As to the possibility CIO and DS were intimidated from above, their boss, Patrick Kennedy agreed to be interviewed, which would suggest he's not under criminal investigation. The crazy thing is, after reading this whole report I'm still not clear as to what happened.

Yes, except to follow your scenario, prior to speeding, the lady signs a two page document saying that she will take care to obey the laws and drive with care. Let me know if you'd like me to post, once again, the document which Hillary Clinton signed in her first days as Secretary of State.

Sorry, but people should not sign such documents if they're not going to be willing to explain their activities after they go about ignoring what the docs say you won't do.

[SillyAmerican]

Interesting to note that per Mike Barnicle of MSNBC:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So isn't it a little tough for Hillary Clinton to say that what she did was allowed? I mean, she failed to follow her own order! I mean, come on, either she had a clear understanding why using home email for State Department business was a bad idea (even while she professes ignorance of any such understanding), or she believed that the rules apply to everybody except her. Which is it? Does it matter? Either way, she shows herself to be someone we cannot trust to act properly while in high office.