While the New York Times has reported that the “State Department’s inspector general sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server” and “undermined some of Mrs. Clinton’s previous statements”, the report did far more than criticize and undermine. It directly contradicted Clinton’s assertions on a number of key points. It further indicated not only clear violations of the State Department rules, but rules that were made clear to Clinton and her staff. (The Washington Post took a more critical view of Clinton’s statements in light of the report). Moreover, while this report deals with State regulations and rules (as well as the Federal Records Act), it does have bearing on the ongoing criminal investigation to the degree that it shows knowledge or reckless disregard of the security protocols and rules. It does show precisely that.
The report clearly establishes a number of damaging facts. First, the State Department made clear that a personal server was not allowed and would present serious security risks for the country. Second, Clinton never asked or received permission for such a server. Third, the State Department would
never have approved such a server. Fourth, Clinton’s objections to using the secure State Department system was not convenience (as she previously stated) but access to her personal emails. Fifth, her actions failed to comply with the Federal Records Act. Sixth, Clinton suspected that she was being hacked but continued to use her personal server exclusively. Finally, the report indicates that Clinton did not fully cooperate with the subsequent inquiries and investigation.
The contradictions with past statements are glaring and will not help Clinton already historic lows for trustworthiness or honesty with voters. For example, in March 2015 Clinton stated at a press conference that:
“Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former Secretaries of State for our assistance in providing copies of work-related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department.”
However the statement department found that
“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 waited two years to turn over emails after deleting tens of thousands deemed “private.”
Likewise, Clinton previously insisted “under the Federal Records Act, records are defined as reported information, regardless of its form or characteristics, and in meeting the record keeping obligations, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.” This has led to the dubious claim that over 90 percent of the emails were preserved due to the recipients being in the system. However, no one has supported that still repeated claim and the State Department did not have those emails. The report further states “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.” It further noted that these emails were not saved beyond a couple years and thus could not be viewed as complying with the system.
Clinton also repeatedly stated “It was allowed under the rules of the State Department. And, again . . . it was allowed. You know, one of my predecessors did the same thing. Others in our government have done the same thing at very high levels because the rules did change after I left state department. But at the time and in prior years the rules allowed it.”
However, the State Department clearly and unambiguously rejected this claim. It states that she never asked permission to use her own server and that such a request would have been denied. It further said that the security risks for such an act were clearly high and would never have been considered as acceptable.
Clinton has also insisted that she has always been entirely cooperative and transparent with the State Department. However, the State Department said that Clinton declined to be interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general as did top aides.
Does this mean that she will clearly be charged with a crime? No. Does this have bearing on a criminal investigation? Yes. Prosecutors often look at elements like (1) a failure to fully disclose or cooperate with an investigation; (2) knowledge or reckless disregard of security protections; (3) awareness of the danger of hacking; (4) false statements made in the wake of disclosure; and (5) the circumvention of standard procedures or personnel. Notably, Clinton acknowledges that she believed that there may have been a hacking effort, but still retained her personal server. Moreover, while part secretaries of state are referenced for sending unprotected emails, Clinton is clearly identified as being a far more egregious case in the use of her own server and taking these actions after the use of such a server was clearly improper.
I have been writing that the security violations involved in the email system are serious and should not be dismissed by the media or the public. As is often case in Washington, the scandal was made worse by the habitual denials and evasion from the Clinton camp. The odds still favor Clinton in avoiding criminal charges but she and her staff have maximized their exposure through their actions and public statements.
What is fascinating is that the spin from Clinton supporters is now the final line of defense: there is no evidence that she was actually hacked. Many of us have expressed our view that such hacking or compromise of the system seems highly likely since the Secretary of State is one of the priority targets for foreign intelligence. Moreover, a hacker who says that he routinely hacked the account has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the government. This spin seems an effort to kick the can down the road to get beyond the convention and secure the nomination before this new line of defense could be contradicted. That is a continuation of the approach from the outset of not getting out in front of the scandal but evading the allegations and adding layers of denial. The Clinton team seems absolutely confident that the Administration will not move on any criminal charges but that is a considerable risk, particularly for top aides implicated in these findings.
A good analysis of the Inspector General’s Report on Clinton’s emails, and a thumbs-up for identifying the duplicitous New York Times’s bias. However, at the end of the day, it does not matter what the Clintons’ have done, be it email violations, or rape, contract murders and assaults, drug trafficking, or any other of the Clintons’ vast criminal endeavors. The Clintons have always proved themselves to be loyal servants of the NWO, and, as such, a completely untouchable. That’s the why it is. Sorry, but end of story.
Most Americans aren’t stupid, just not very well informed. The less information you have, the poorer your decisions will be, and the less able you will be equipped to THINK and reason critically. Many people believe that the Clinton Grift Foundation story is as important as what’s in her deleted emails, but our Corporate Media has thus far failed to inform the public about the Clinton RICO Foundation.
Rich people kiss each other. Poor people p*** on each other.
Lisa N.,
Your statement assumes people must vote only for a Democratic or Republican candidate. There are many candidates running for president. They deserve a look!
Although I do predict the oligarchy will win the election, we the people might at least try thinking about a person who isn’t their complete tool! If your candidate has already shown that they are into breaking the law, such as willing to commit murder and torture (Clinton Bernie and Trump), then I would not vote for that person.
But no, Donald doesn’t win if Clinton is out of the race.
Oops. Bad link in my comment on May 26, 2016 at 2:23 pm at “Also see the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.”
Fixed:
Also see theanswer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.
Bonus:
See the answers to “What were President Bush’s alternatives with Iraq?” & “Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?”.
Ron:
“Hillary voted for the Afghanistan/Iraq disaster by giving Bush II carte blanch, an error in judgement of monumental proportions”
See Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton). Also see the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.
On the law and the facts, the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom and, by the same token, Senator Clinton’s vote for the 2002 AUMF (Public Law 107-243) were correct.
One item I don’t think Prof. Turley pointed out here is that it is being reported that the IG report states that she used the private server EXCLUSIVELY throughout her tenure as Secretary of State. That means she never used the secure government system she was required to use. Seems to me that everything beyond that, once established, makes very clear she had no regard whatsoever of the rules and regulations surrounding keeping government secrets safe not to mention the public records act. Hillary Clinton is emerging as the political version of Leona Helmsley in believing the rules only apply “to the little people”.
Can the Democrats put in another candidate, if Clinton is charged with a crime ‘after’ she is the nominee?
Or is the election automatically forfeited to the challenger Trump?
More Hillary closet junk:
Another Hillary Clinton Scandal Surfaces in Nigeria
Throughout Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state she was constantly nagged by a pesky question. Why was she refusing to name the Islamic Boko Haram as a terrorist organization?
What was the problem? The Boko Haram had publicly pledged to assassinate the American ambassador in Nigeria. They had bombed the United Nation’s headquarters in Abuja. The FBI, CIA, the Pentagon, the Justice Department, even the White House urged Hillary to declare Boko Haram as terrorists.
It turns out that the Clinton Foundation had received several million dollars from Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton campaign donor, Gilbert Chagoury.
The billionaire owned the five star Ekko Hotel in downtown Lagos and the five star Presidential Hotel in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Bottom line? Labeling the Boko Haram as a terrorist organization would be bad for tourism.
What is especially galling is the outrage Hillary Clinton later demonstrated when the very same Boko Harm kidnapped hundreds of Nigerian school girls from a boarding school in Chibok.
I agree with JT that we should not elect any woman to be our President and that none can be trusted to follow rules if the rules get in the way of their Way. I have followed the blog closely on this topic and will follow your advice and vote for Trump.
I have never seen such a quivering mass of cowardice in the legal community-this act ALONE is enough to impeach Clinton and send her to jail, putting official statements on a private server is a CRIME and a security violation,
and yet she is allowed once again to parade her criminal behavior in front of the world unscathed-SICKENING
Obama, aided by Hillary, illegally bombed Syria to the stone age for the sole cause of removing a legally installed foreign leader (Bashar Al Assad). The result? Syria a pile of rubble, six million displaced refugees, 250k dead innocent civilians, Europe overrun with refugees, etc, etc. etc. “March on, Christian soldiers!” Peace Prize winner Obama dropped more bombs on Syria than Bush dropped altogether everywhere.
Hillary and Obama personally had Ghaddafi murdered, then his body raped by Islamic terrorists they hired, and also turned Libya into a steaming pile of dung and rubble (USA specialty), oversaw the death of multiple US diplomats, and filled it with murderous felons and terrorists. Success, Amerika!
Obama spent $237k BILLION in Afghanistan since he took office. More success!
Am I the only one that remembers Obama’s primary promise pre-election was a guarantee to “end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?” How’s that working out? Longest continuous war than any other POTUS in history! Success!
Obama promised a dozen time “no boots on the ground in Syria! None!” And now we have indeed 300 Special Forces in Syria, if not more unknown. I guess they wear sneakers!
Per issacbasonkovich, these are all good reasons to vote for Hillary and against Trump. “When monkeys fly out my _utt!”
Reblogged this on Today,s Thought.
More Hillary closet junk:
Was Hillary Clinton Responsible For Civil War In Ukraine and The Possible War With Russia? Follow the money trail of the TOP Clinton foundation donor from Ukraine.
Between 2009 and 2013, the very period when Hillary Clinton was serving as US secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation appears to have received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.
That places Ukraine as the leading contributor among foreign donators to the Clinton Foundation.
Critics have pointed to some disturbing aspects regarding the donations, including the coincidence of the Ukrainian crisis, which began in November 2013, and the heavy amount of cash donations being made to the Clinton Foundation on behalf of wealthy Ukrainian businessmen.
This is one more example of how the rule of law is non-existant in the US. Clinton should be charged yet she will only be charged if people more powerful than she, decide she will be. If they want her taken down, she will be taken down. If they want her in power, she will remain untouched.
If we want to break this cycle one thing people must stop doing is excusing criminality of their gal or guy. This includes Bernie supporters who care no more about the rule of law than Clinton supporters. Bernie is all for “killer Tuesdays with tea and cookies”. If his supporters vote for him despite his willingness to break the rule of law (which in this case involves the wanton killing of other people), then what is your complaint against Clinton breaking the rule of laws? You have none. I am really sick of Sanders supporters who support a man who will commit murder just as Clinton has/will. Stop it! Have some actual ethics for a change.
We will never get back to the rule of law unless we demand it. We can only demand it if we first get our own ethics in order. If you don’t believe in the powerful breaking the Constitution, then quit excusing it, EVER, no matter how much you love your guy or gal. Say it and mean it. Republican, Democrat or a third party-if your candidate is breaking the rule of law, speak out.
I will not vote for any of the murderers!
Zionist Trump is evil but he may offer a glimmer of justice.
We can’t believe any of these politicians right now. The truth comes after the elections. The proof comes not in what they say but in how they vote.
They LIE !!
THE U.S. ELECTION PROCESS HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY ZIONISTS
TRUMP and CLINTON are both Warmongering Israeli Zionist Stooges
Veterans Today: Until such time as American voters wake up from their deep sleep and coma, rise and stand up for America, all presidential candidates and all candidates for Senate and House will always be Israeli candidates and never American candidates.
The politicians don’t work for us they work for Israel. They are Zionists.
“Facilitating the terrorizing and destruction of millions of lives around the world and assassinating national leaders are apparently acceptable, but using e-mail for communications – that is sinful.”
If a low level hacker can hack her emails, I think our enemies, foreign and domestic can too. It’s been reported that she emailed on the whereabouts of top secret human capital, including Seal Team 6, whom are mostly all dead now.
Wonder how our enemies were able to find out where they were, when they were shot down. Who else would know their whereabouts but the SOS?
Judge Napolitano: State Dept Audit Could Be ‘Devastating’ for Hillary
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/25/judge-napolitano-state-department-audit-could-be-devastating-hillary-clinton
More Hillary closet junk:
Hillary says Bill Clinton is a financial genius and will serve in White House to fix things. She lied. It was Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.
Robert Rubin
Where to start with a man like Robert Rubin? A Goldman Sachs chairman who wormed his way into the Treasury Secretary post under President Bill Clinton, Rubin presided over one of the most radical deregulatory eras in the history of finance. Rubin’s influence within the Democratic Party marked the final stage in the Democrats’ transformation from the concerned citizens who fought Wall Street and won during the 1930s to a coalition of Republican-lite financial elites.
Rubin’s most stunning deregulatory accomplishment in office was also his greatest act of corruption. Rubin helped repeal Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that banned economically essential banks from gambling with taxpayer money in the securities markets. In 1998, Citibank inked a merger with the Travelers Insurance group. The deal was illegal under Glass-Steagall, but with Rubin’s help, the law was repealed in 1999, and the Citi-Travelers merger approved, creating too-big-to-fail behemoth Citigroup.
That same year, Rubin left the government to work for Citi, where he made $120 million as the company piled up risk after crazy risk. In 2008, the company collapsed spectacularly, necessitating a $45 billion direct government bailout, and hundreds of billions more in other government guarantees. Rubin is now attempting to rebuild his disgraced public image by warning about the dangers of government spending and Social Security. Bob, if you’re worried about the deficit, the problem isn’t old people trying to get by, it’s corrupt bankers running amok