State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

[mac]

The IG report says that....but the new NARA directives that provided guidance for the State Dept. were put in place in 2013 and Clinton left office in 2012. After reading the new directives...they don't look that much different from the old directives.

The old directives went into place in 2005 after Powell left office.

 

[Moot]

It's a law. Not stopping at a stop sign is a misdemeanor. Kinda like, "high crimes and misdemeanors". Does that ring a bell?

It rings a bell...but...does it have something to do with Bill's impeachment? lol Man, what a waste of time and tax dollars that was.

 

[Moot]

The old directives went into place in 2005 after Powell left office.

Well, as far as I can tell the old directives look just like the new directives....and they aren't that comprehensive, either....imo. The only difference I saw was that instead of having to print everything out on paper in order to preserve it....they wanted it preserved "electronically" and then sent to the DS (dept of state). That might suggest that when Clinton was in office the governments communication services were antiquated and needed updating. I think the IG admitted as much.

edit: there was another difference....each department's assistant secretary had to appoint an SOA director....or was it and SOS director....whatever.

 

[Moot]

Said, past tense, as in nearly 15 months ago, before it became clear how many emails were not captured. And as you can see now, State's IG says it was not an appropriate means of preserving the records.

Well, if the State IT system wasn't an appropriate means of preserving records then what is? Most of Clinton's emails were captured on the State ID system...and she had her emails stored on a thumb drive. Which if I understand correctly complies with the new 2013 NARA guidelines to store records electronically instead of on paper.

 

[Absentglare]

The IG report also said the only other secretary of state to use personal email “exclusively” for government business was Colin Powell, contrary to Clinton’s claim that her “predecessors” — plural — “did the same thing.” The IG also said that, like Clinton, Powell did not comply with policies on preserving work-related emails.

But the IG report said the comparison to Powell — who did not use a private server — only goes so far. It said during Clinton’s tenure, the rules governing personal email and the use of nongovernment systems were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” citing specific memos that warned department employees about the security risks of not using the government system.

“Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,” the report said.

I don't see how that provides evidence for your claim :

Not accurate, the IG addresses explicitly what you are trying to say here, and their conclusion is that what she did was much worse than what any previous secretary did.

 

[mac]

I don't see how that provides evidence for your claim :

Of course you don't.

 

[Moot]

When can they use private email? The FAM spells it out.

Did you notice the date? (2016)


https://fam.state.gov/FAM/12FAM/12FAM0540.html


How does this apply to Hillary...who left office in 2012 and turned over her emails to the DS in what...2014? Not sure, but I don't think Hillary used her blackberry to go on the internet. I thought it was just for emails. Nor have I heard that she had or used a personal computer, at least not for work. I'm assuming she a secure government issued computer in her office at the DS...whether she used it or not.



edit: here's something from the FAM link....

b. Employees transmitting SBU information should consider whether specific information warrants a higher level of protection accorded by a secure fax, phone, or other encrypted means of communication. Employees transmitting SBU information via non-secure fax must ensure that an authorized recipient is ready to receive it at the other end.

In this case it's emails...so if most of the emails that Hillary sent were to the DS and had a DS address...then wouldn't that qualify as an "authorized recipient" for her SBU emails? I only ask because some of her emails were classified retroactively...which seems kind of redundant since she sent them to an "authorized recipient" in the first place. Not to mention they were captured on the State IT system.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course you don't.

Sorry, but how elaborate, comprehensive- how wordy a law is doesn't change the fact of whether or not a given rule was being violated. The IG reports that the same rules were being violated by them both.

The rules being more verbose doesn't make the alleged crime necessarily any worse. You went even farther and claimed "much worse" which is not the claim made by the IG's report.

 

[Absentglare]

Did you notice the date? (2016)


https://fam.state.gov/FAM/12FAM/12FAM0540.html


How does this apply to Hillary...who left office in 2012 and turned over her emails to the DS in what...2014? Not sure, but I don't think Hillary used her blackberry to go on the internet. I thought it was just for emails. Nor have I heard that she had or used a personal computer, at least not for work. I'm assuming she a secure government issued computer in her office at the DS...whether she used it or not.



edit: here's something from the FAM link....



In this case it's emails...so if most of the emails that Hillary sent were to the DS and had a DS address...then wouldn't that qualify as an "authorized recipient" for her SBU emails? I only ask because some of her emails were classified retroactively...which seems kind of redundant since she sent them to an "authorized recipient" in the first place. Not to mention they were captured on the State IT system.

Oh !! This proves it.

Hillary is absolutely guilty. She's guilty of not time traveling to the future, learning their laws, traveling back in time, and then obeying those future laws.

Obviously, this means she's a witch.

 

[Moot]

Oh !! This proves it.

Hillary is absolutely guilty. She's guilty of not time traveling to the future, learning their laws, traveling back in time, and then obeying those future laws.

Obviously, this means she's a witch.

She probably floats, too. lol

 

[mac]

Did you notice the date? (2016)

.

That's the date of the current, active, regulation. The same regulation was in place during Clintons term. That's explicitly stated in the IG report. She was supposed to use govt systems when available. They were available to her, she chose not to use it. Also specified in the IG report.

Look, The IG report says clearly that she is at fault...even liberal media outlets like the Washington Post and NY Times acknowledge that.

 

[mac]

That doesn't make sense. Because if she wanted to avoid the FOIA then why did she send emails to State Department email addresses and save over 55,000 emails?

She didn't turn over her private emails because it wasn't necessary or mandatory.

The regulations regarding emails haven't changed that much since Powell...if at all.

If she didn't want to circumvent, why set up a personal server, at personal expense, when a taxpayer funded (and approved) govt server was available?

I notice you didn't answer, care to offer your thoughts, Moot?

 

[Samhain]

It's my understanding that the emails Clinton sent to other employees within the agency were automatically captured on the States IT system. Which means the State Department had most of her emails all along.

From a March 2015 State Department daily press briefing....

MS. HARF: First, the notion that the Department didn’t have the content of these emails until she turned them over isn’t accurate. A vast majority of them were to or from State.gov addresses or to addressees. So they were obviously retained and captured in that moment. So that notion is just not accurate and I wanted to put that out there first.

A couple other points: There was no prohibition on using a non-State.gov account for official business as long as it’s preserved. So obviously, that’s an important piece of this. When in the process of updating our records management – this is something that’s sort of ongoing given technology and the changes – we reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they had. Secretary Clinton sent back 55,000 pages of documents to the State Department very shortly after we sent the letter to her. She was the only former Secretary of State who sent documents back in to this request. These 55,000 pages covered her time, the breadth of her time at the State Department.....

QUESTION: Yeah, but on – in June 2011, Jay Carney said from the podium, quote: “We are definitely instructed that we need to conduct all of our work on government accounts as part of the Presidential Records Act.” So how do you square those --

MS. HARF: Well, those are different things. That’s the instruction, but there is no prohibition on using a non-state.gov account for official business as long as it’s preserved. That’s in – yes. Let me finish, Justin, and then you can, I’m sure, disagree with what I’m saying and ask more questions. So there was – I mean, the fact is there was no prohibition on this happening as long as it was preserved. I would point out that she has sent in those 55,000 pages. Those are now all part of the permanent record, a vast majority of which already was, given most of it was to and from state.gov addresses......

QUESTION: Is there a prohibition now on using a personal address for government --

MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no. The rules as they stand now – and let me just pull this up so I have this – and NARA has continually updated their guidance. The September 2013 NARA guidance is that if an employee uses a personal email account to conduct official business, he or she is instructed to take steps to ensure that any records sent or received are preserved – for example, by forwarding it to an official government account. Those rules have been sent to all State Department employees to make sure they knew that. And again, this is an ongoing process to update records management. As you can all imagine, this is a huge undertaking for an organization as large as ours that actually hasn’t had email for – in the grand scheme of things – all that long......

MS. HARF: I can check. There – I do know, though, relatedly, that there was no real-time preservation requirement. The requirement is just to preserve any records that are part of the official record, which she has done by providing them.

Daily Press Briefing - March 3, 2015​

After requesting that all former heads of state turn over all their work related records....Hillary was the only one that complied. Henry Kissinger didn't turn over all his records until recently and he had been keeping them in house all those years.

Which is incorrect, as the IG report specifically states that Clinton was notified in 2014 that they were not automatically captured. Which means she lied multiple times post 2014 where she insisted it to be true, as did Harf above.

 

[Paperview]

Which is incorrect, as the IG report specifically states that Clinton was notified in 2014 that they were not automatically captured. Which means she lied multiple times post 2014 where she insisted it to be true, as did Harf above.

If they reside in the in-box of said recipient, how are they not captured?

 

[Samhain]

If they reside in the in-box of said recipient, how are they not captured?

From the IG report

As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

She was told this in 2014, and continued to lie about it in 2015 and 2016. So you could say they could have been "captured" in some form, but not in compliance with the Federal Records Act.

 

[eohrnberger]

Did you notice the date? (2016)


https://fam.state.gov/FAM/12FAM/12FAM0540.html


How does this apply to Hillary...who left office in 2012 and turned over her emails to the DS in what...2014? Not sure, but I don't think Hillary used her blackberry to go on the internet. I thought it was just for emails. Nor have I heard that she had or used a personal computer, at least not for work. I'm assuming she a secure government issued computer in her office at the DS...whether she used it or not.



edit: here's something from the FAM link....



In this case it's emails...so if most of the emails that Hillary sent were to the DS and had a DS address...then wouldn't that qualify as an "authorized recipient" for her SBU emails? I only ask because some of her emails were classified retroactively...which seems kind of redundant since she sent them to an "authorized recipient" in the first place. Not to mention they were captured on the State IT system.

The moment a BlackBerry enables a cellular data connection or a WiFi data connection, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's 'on' (connected to) the Internet.

How else to send or receive emails? How else to connect to her server all the way back in NY from where ever she was on planet Earth?

The network path is pretty straight forward, connect to the local cellular carrier or WiFi, then to the Internet, and make a connection all the way to the NY server to send or receive email.

 

[Paperview]

From the IG report


She was told this in 2014, and continued to lie about it in 2015 and 2016. So you could say they could have been "captured" in some form, but not in compliance with the Federal Records Act.

So, just like Powell, then. OK.

 

[Samhain]

So, just like Powell, then. OK.

IG Report on Clinton’s Emails

On multiple occasions, Clinton has said she was not alone in using personal email for government business. That is correct, but she distorts the facts when saying that what she did was the same as other secretaries of state, as she did in a CNN interview on July 7, 2015, in a March 9 debate, and again in the ABC interview on May 26 after the report came out.

Yeah, just not like Powell, but feel free to keep deflecting.

 

[Paperview]

IG Report on Clinton’s Emails



Yeah, just not like Powell, but feel free to keep deflecting.

I'm talking about what you said about being "captured" in some form, and not in compliance with the Federal Records Act.

He did not retain them, did not print them out as required, and we only have what he sent or rec'd from .gov servers.

From your link: "The IG also said that, like Clinton, Powell did not comply with policies on preserving work-related emails."

Powell: "These emails should be on the State Department computers." Those are the only records of Powell's emails.

 

[Samhain]

I'm talking about what you said about being "captured" in some form, and not in compliance with the Federal Records Act.

He did not retain them, did not print them out as required, and we only have what he sent or rec'd from .gov servers.

From your link: "The IG also said that, like Clinton, Powell did not comply with policies on preserving work-related emails."

Powell: "These emails should be on the State Department computers." Those are the only records of Powell's emails.

Feel free to call for him to be indicted too.

 

[Paperview]

Feel free to call for him to be indicted too.

He won't be indicted - he's been cleared. He violated a policy, didn't break a criminal law.

Just like Hillary will be cleared, as she too violated policies, didn't break a criminal law.

 

[Objective Voice]

That she violated the regulations State (and the rest of the USG) has in place to ensure the laws are followed is a violation of the laws those regulations support. Further, the State IG most certainly does not state that she "did nothing illegal."

I notice you have stopped responding.

Well, at some point you just have to stop responding to non-sense.

 

[Objective Voice]

You just admitted that you know the rules and in place because of the law. Now, you're saying Clinton's violation of the rules suddenly isn't breaking the law?

No. What I'm saying is there's nothing criminal she did. Pay attention...there is a difference here.

The OIG Report is essentially saying that although Hillary may have violated federal law, there's nothing criminal about what she did. While she could face punitive action for violating administrative procedures (i.e., a fine or written reprimand), there's nothing criminal (i.e., felony charge equating to jail time) about her failure to adhere to federal administrative records management standards. However, there are those like yourself who firmly believe in the more extreme point of view which is "any violation of federal law is a criminal offense", but that doesn't appear to be the case here. For example, where I work in state government the rules clearly state that when I leave my office I am suppose to secure my work area by putting records away or locking my door if a client's file is open and accessible to the public (i.e., other visiting patient constitutes "the public"). While I may close the record or turn documents over to prevent passers-by from seeing private health information, I don't lock my office door - I just close it because in most cases I'm never gone for any extended period of time and the section where I work has very limited foot traffic from the public. So, should I be prosecuted for that? No. BUT...

If in my brief absence someone comes in and copies a patient's SSN and uses it, now I could be in trouble for allowing patient health information to fall into the wrong hands.

So, what I and the OIG Report am trying to get across is while Hillary clearly violated administrative procedures, nothing she did (thus far) was considered a criminal offense. Of course, their job wasn't to find criminal activity. They left that up to the FBI to figure out and I'm perfectly fine with that. If their investigation finds criminal wrong doing I'll be right there demanding she be placed in cuffs and hauled off to federal prison. But until then, I say there's really nothing Earth shattering about the OIG's findings. I know some of you think there is...hoped there would be, but there really isn't anything damning about her actions in this report.

 

[mac]

Well, at some point you just have to stop responding to non-sense.

Then why don't you weigh in....why would she go to such lengths to have full control over her email?

 

[Objective Voice]

Then why don't you weigh in....why would she go to such lengths to have full control over her email?

See my post #234...

(Of course, you could always read the report yourself and find all your answers there just as well.)