Hillary Clinton Violated Email Policy, State Dept. Says
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: ABC News
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and some of her predecessors violated the government's policies on email use and records retention, the State Department's inspector general says.
The department's investigative office made the conclusion in a report released only to members of Congress and obtained by ABC News. The report examined the email practices of five U.S. secretaries of state and found that there was "a limited ability to retrieve email records, inaccessibility of electronic files, failure to comply with requirements for departing employees and a general lack of oversight."
Clinton's campaign for president has been dogged by questions surrounding last year's revelation that she used a private email server to send official correspondence during her entire tenure as secretary of state. She has since turned over many of the messages from her private account but deleted others she deemed irrelevant to her professional work. The FBI is investigating the handling of sensitive information on that server to determine whether there was any criminal wrongdoing.
About Clinton specifically, the report says that she should have preserved federal records she created and received on her personal account and that sending emails from the personal account to other employees at the department was "not an appropriate method of preserving" federal records. Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretaries Madeline Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice participated in interviews with the inspector general’s office, but Clinton and her aides denied requests to be interviewed.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-violated-email-policy-state-dept/story?id=39366354
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)
Perogie
(687 posts)
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)long debunked intimation of 'violence' by Sanders' supporters (which consisted of one chair being raised, then lowered, then the man who had lowered it being hugged)?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)One of my pet peeves about this place. Kind a "oneupmanship" So you already read it. Well I didn't and you don't earn Brownie Points for being first either.
Rant concluded.
ejbr
(5,892 posts)It's more egregious to post more than once than to jeopardize national security 
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)ejbr
(5,892 posts)I'm a progressive
ejbr
(5,892 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)ejbr
(5,892 posts)A progressive is supposed to support a candidate who is a war hawk, promotes fracking, is cool with the death penalty, and has been endorsed by the Goldman Sachs CEO in 2008. Got it. 
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Understands the whole system is rotten and does not have the choice of pure or perfect, never had.
Understands has to almost always vote for the less bought off of the two.
As a real Bernie voter, myself, I will hope for a miracle and he will be elected, but if he isnt, I will do what he does.
Bet you know what that is.
ejbr
(5,892 posts)Well, I'm a grown ass man whose big picture does not include what you or Bernie decide to do vis a vis the GE. Plus, Hillary has already made it quite clear my vote is not needed, so I have no worries
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... Anyone with a D after their name.
Any wrongdoings must have been for the greater good.
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)was not playing any game of oneupmanship I simply pointed out the fact that it was already posted and LBN rules do not allow for duplicates.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Also, for such a highly anticipated event, it seems to me, especially after reading a few, there were a variety of positions and interpretations.
No big deal though.
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)SusanLarson
(284 posts)Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
Her purpose was concealment as we get in this quote from her own mouth. This is also why she sent the records to the state department in a printed form, to ensure that they were not easily accessible. Each record would have to be scanned then OCR'd at considerable effort and expense.
"As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I —- I don’t even want -— why would I ever want to do e-mail?" Hillary Clinton seen on tape telling Peter Paul on home video captured at a fundraiser.
"Can you imagine?" she said.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
...(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/Election/hillary-clinton-email-2000/story?id=29396854
You wrote:
"Her purpose was concealment as we get in this quote from her own mouth. This is also why she sent the records to the state department in a printed form, to ensure that they were not easily accessible. Each record would have to be scanned then OCR'd at considerable effort and expense. "
I call bullshit. There is no evidence of intent to conceal, AND the regulations REQUIRE them to print out a hard copy.
See 36 CFR 1236.22(f) REQUIRES a person to print out the hard coipy email and send it for records retention.
"
f) Agencies that maintain paper recordkeeping systems must print and file their electronic mail records with the related transmission and receipt data specified by the agency's electronic mail instructions."
Bunk.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)If she violated a rule it doesn't matter if the State Dept "allowed" it or not.
George II
(67,782 posts)SusanLarson
(284 posts)The FBI doesn't investigate rules or procedural violations, nor do they give immunity to someone in exchange for their testimony for breaking a rule. There is multiple violations of federal laws and the classified information and the blantant violation of section 2071 is gonna be what she ends up getting charged with.
marble falls
(71,919 posts)to pick up home kitty litter on the way home. But still a big batch of nothing. Where's the investigation of Dick Cheney deleting 7,000,000 or so e-mails? 7,000,00 or so.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)we should just let every politician get away with it? Cause there is a (D) after her name it's a big batch of nothing? And we now know it was more than just emails from Bill that were deleted - remember the 22 that were top secret? Think that was to Bill about cat litter? Also by Bill's own admission, he's only sent 2 emails in his whole life.
Laser102
(816 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Am I doing it right?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)and let Drumpf take the White House and subsequently destroy all life on the planet.
Seems logical and reasonable to me.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)There is still a chance to get a really good Democratic nominee into the White House, so I'm already on the right track supporting HIM.
Keep telling yourself this is nothing and see what happens in November if people don't want to admit how bad a candidate Hillary is.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)State can't indict anyone.
WhiteHat
(129 posts)If you listen at all to the right-wing, this disqualifies Hillary from the presidency.
Hilary's personal email server is an obvious transgression of bureaucratic rules, no question. But if you want to suggest that a "bureaucratic transgression" in today's America, make Hillary a "criminal," then you must not have ever attempted to distort the bureaucratic rules yourself, John Snow.
Or you have already decided, for reasons having nothing to do with Hillary's potential as a world leader, to discount her value as an opponent to the lunacy that is Trump. In that case, I suggest you dry out enough to achieve basic human literacy.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
RussBLib
(10,635 posts)I've already heard countless, breathless descriptions of the OIG's statement, but none have addressed whether or not this exposes Hillary to any legal liability.
Anyone know for sure?
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)The FBI will probably be letting us know shortly.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)I think that's what the FBI was waiting on: for the State Dept to get finished with it's investigation.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)so it would seem to me the FBI is close to wrapping up. Plus the Guccifer plea today...interesting.
And I wonder - any word that Hillary is calling for a presser or anything?
ReRe
(12,189 posts)Not surprising. My mind works backwards sometimes these days. 
Did hear about the Guccifer hacker today... seen them frog-marching him from a car. No, haven't heard a word about a Hill presser.
What I hope for next is a Press Conference by the FBI with their findings & conclusion.
This is my tally so far:
Hillary Democrats: Innocent
Public perception: guilty
State Dept: guilty
FBI: ______________
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Check this footnote out on page 40 of the OIG report:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf
159 In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department
On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.
This directly conflicts with Clinton and her team explicitly stating that the server was never hacked:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.
This is going to definitely impact the FBI investigation as it proves that Clinton knew about the risks of her server and did not report them, as is required by law, as well as proves she knew full well the servers were actively being attacked, yet lied directly about this on her own website and again did not report as required.
George II
(67,782 posts)....just about everyone on this site with a connection to the internet is "attacked" several times a day. Very few, if any, are "hacked".
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)The only 2 places it could have come from is either
1 The Clinton Library/Foundation
or
2 The joint private server of Bill and Hillary now in the spotlight
please follow me on this, these are Bill Clinton doodles, who reporters had been trying to get for years, but they refused
in 2013, Guccifer (yes the one who has just 2 days reached a plea bargain deal with e DOJ and who claims to have hacked Clinton's private servers and has 2GB of docs in an encrypted cloud) released the doodles, they were real, and they were hacked
Here's Some New Hacked Presidential Art From The Clinton White House
Gabrielle Bluestone
12/04/13 8:03pm
http://gawker.com/new-hacked-presidential-art-may-be-bill-clintons-white-1476802573
Presidential doodles are commonly made public, and were even the subject of a book, "Presidential Doodlings," but for years, the Clinton Foundation has refused requests through its press office.
there are more, you can find them on the link above
now, Guccifer (who was NOT in custody then), refused to say where he got those REAL docs
people assumed the Clinton Library
BUT
it now is looking like they more likely came from BILLS personal server — the SAME server that had Hillary’s emails
Clinton quite possibly (and by accident) revealed this last year when she was talking on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd
http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=103907
TODD: …except-- this seemed to be-- to put an e-mail server at your house is not a-- it's a complicated thing.
CLINTON: Yeah, but it was already there. It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband's personal office used when he got out of the White House. And so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all. I know there are a lot of people who are, you know, questioning that. But the fact is that it was there. I added my account to it.
meaning the email server that contained Bills HACKED doodles, his personal files, was very likely the same as the server Hillary was using for the classified info
big shoes may damn well yet drop
Laser102
(816 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The report includes interviews with Kerry and Powell and former secretaries Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, but it says that Clinton declined to be interviewed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html
Justice
(7,261 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The inspector general has rejected allegations of bias, noting that the scope of the review encompasses secretaries of both parties and that it was undertaken at the direction of Clinton’s Democratic successor, Kerry. The report includes interviews with Kerry and Powell and former secretaries Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, but it says that Clinton declined to be interviewed. The inspector general, Steve Linick, was appointed by President Obama and has served since 2013.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html
frylock
(34,825 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Justice
(7,261 posts)Stephen Vladek, a law professor at American University in Washington, said the findings by the Office of Inspector General are "deeply consistent with what most legal experts have long suspected -- that Secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct official business was inconsistent with internal State Department guidelines."
"Critically, though, the OIG report does not appear to conclude that any of Secretary Clinton’s actions were unlawful under either federal records preservation laws or criminal statutes," said Vladek, who specializes in constitutional and national-security law.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-25/clinton-e-mail-use-violated-rules-state-department-audit-finds
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Breaks down some of the "facts" as per HRC's website and how the IG's report refutes several of them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4l052h/megathread_state_department_email_audit_re/d3j69gt
Tribalceltic
(1,000 posts)or has his investigative style become policy.
how many times have we seen "investigations and allegations" thrown at the Clinton's? and they never seem to find anything that means anything. Chalk another one up for the anti-democrats crowd
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Never mind that the FBI & IG have cleared everyone but Hillary and that Hillary
is the only one who's refusing to be interviewed.
SusanLarson
(284 posts)The FBI doesn't give immunity to someone who was "Cleared"
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I was referring to all the other SoSs who were questioned, not other co-workers of
Hillary's at State. To my knowledge, no other former SOStates officially under
an FBI Investigation? Powell, Kerry, et. al. were only questioned in connection with
Hillary's investigation.
Or do you have some different understanding of this?
MidwestTech
(170 posts)I may not support HRC for president, but I am sick and tired of the RW attacks on her.
Isn't this more bullshit they manufactured to be recursively illegal as opposed to actually against the rules at the time?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)They were only questioned in connection with Hillary's investigation.
Or do you have some different understanding of this?
dcbuckeye
(85 posts)This is in Slate today: "But as the Post notes, it's also probably good for Clinton that the report—which doesn't allege any illegal activity and also criticizes the email practices of previous State Department honchos like Colin Powell—was released now rather, than, like, Nov. 1. Meanwhile there's still no indication that the FBI's parallel investigation into whether Clinton's handling of classified material constituted criminal negligence has turned up anything damaging. At this point it doesn't look like Clinton's use of the private server, however ill-advised, is going to sink her campaign."
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)The FBI is still investigating as well as several other investigations and depositions.
Enjoy your "at this point" because the other shoe(s) is going to drop soon.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)I think FBI is wrapping up soon. Gut feeling is there will be no recommendation for indictment. That's just speculation of course.
But we will know soon.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I think the whole email thing is the tip of the iceberg, and the reason I think that is because of the announcement of the McAuliffe FBI/Justice Department investigation this week. I believe the McAuliffe investigation came out of the email investigation which led to the Clinton Foundation and questionable donations from Wang Wending (and possibly others).
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)How does that get just shrugged off when there's no record of there being any such clearance? I know what I'd be saying if they had been working in a Republican administration.
Edit:
"In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the report states. "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton's personal system."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512051253
cstanleytech
(28,471 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Doing his JOB and taking HER Spokesperson Brian Fallon to the COALS on the Inspector General report and he's totally failing to answer or dodging the answer to SPECIFIC passages in the report.
Look like CNN is turning the tables just a bit. #ThingsThatMakeYouGoUmm....
Will SEARCH for this interview link later. Wolf is masterful at these questions at this moment. #ThisIsAMustWatchInterview