5 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE STATE OIG REPORT (Clinton email scandal)

[BootinUp]

5 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE STATE OIG REPORT

On key points, IG report confirms what Secretary Clinton has said all along about her personal email use

Don’t fall for the political spin coming from Hillary Clinton’s political opponents regarding the report out this morning from the State Department Office of Inspector General on the use of email by previous Secretaries of State. We read the report closely, and here are the five things you should know.

1. The OIG report shows that there was long-standing precedent for Secretaries of State and their staff to use non-State.gov email:

“OIG discovered anecdotal examples suggesting that Department staff have used personal email accounts to conduct official business, with wide variations among Secretaries and their immediate staff members. For instance, OIG reviewed the Department email accounts (.pst files) of senior Department employees who served on the immediate staffs of Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice between 2001 and 2008. Within these accounts, OIG identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business, though OIG could not quantify the frequency of this use.” [State Department Inspector General Report, “Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements,” May 2016, pg 19]

2. The OIG report shows that no Secretary of State used a State.gov email until Secretary Kerry:

“OIG searched selected hard-copy records from her tenure and did not find any evidence to indicate that Secretary Albright used either Department or personal email accounts during that period.” [pg. 20]

“During Secretary Powell’s tenure, the Department introduced for the first time unclassified desktop email and access to the Internet on a system known as OpenNet, which remains in use to this day. Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet’s introduction.” [pg. 21]

“Secretary Rice and her representative advised the Department and OIG that the Secretary did not use either personal or Department email accounts for official business.” [pg. 22]

“Secretary Kerry uses a Department email account on OpenNet and stated that, while he has used a personal email account to conduct official business, he has done so infrequently.” [pg. 25]

3.The OIG report confirms that people throughout the State Department knew Secretary Clinton did not use a State.gov email account:

“OIG did find evidence that various staff and senior officials throughout the Department had discussions related to the Secretary’s use of non-Departmental systems, suggesting there was some awareness of Secretary Clinton’s practices.” [“Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements,” State OIG, pg. 38]

4. The OIG report contains no evidence of a breach of Secretary Clinton’s email. It does, in fact, contain evidence that the State Department was aware and proactive on issues of cyber-security:

“Department implemented a mandatory annual requirement for all Department computer users to take Cybersecurity Awareness training.” [pg. 59]

“Beginning in 2009, the Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) in DS issued regular notices to Department computer users highlighting cybersecurity threats. CTAD notices addressed BlackBerry security vulnerabilities, citing this device as a weak link in a computer network. CTAD warned that BlackBerry devices must be configured in accordance with Department security guidelines.” [pg. 59]

“DS cybersecurity staff conducted two cybersecurity briefings of S/ES staff, the Secretary’s immediate staff, and Bureau of Public Affairs staff in April and May 2011.” [pg. 34]

“On June 28, 2011, the Department, in a cable entitled ‘Securing Personal E-mail Accounts’ that was approved by the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and sent over Secretary Clinton’s name to all diplomatic and consular posts…’” [pg. 34]

5. The OIG report shows Secretary Clinton made public approximately 55,000 pages of work emails, an unprecedented amount. NARA confirmed that the production covered preservation requirements for federal records:

“In December 2014, in response to Department requests, Secretary Clinton produced to the Department from her personal email account approximately 55,000 hard-copy pages, representing approximately 30,000 emails that she believed related to official business.” [pg. 23]

“NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.” [pg. 23]

http://correctrecord.org/5-takeaways-from-the-state-oig-report/

[Matt_in_STL]

1. Are you supposed to post Brock's talking points here?

I thought those were just to help you determine the content of your posts.

[lagomorph777]

10. Hmm, it's not very subtle.

Probably won't get paid for that one; it breaks the "fourth wall."

[cali]

11. Naked propaganda without so much as a fig leaf to cover its naked lies.

[JudyM]

25. Yes, these are striking distortions of the report.

[joshcryer]

51. This is pathetic.

You should be ashamed.

[JonLeibowitz]

76. I tend to think SuperPAC-funded spin is pathetic and shameful. Obviously, we differ.

[Dem2]

36. Well, the other choice is right-wing sites

...but that seems reserved for Bernie's side and their attacks on Hillary.

[workinclasszero]

42. Its better than all the pro Trump garbage from Sanders supporters

[joshcryer]

49. bigtree is a long time DUer.

Stop posting this shit.

[Octafish]

54. bootinup

The OP is by bootinup.

The talking points it contains seem to have been written by the guy who called Anita Hill names to get Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

[Matt_in_STL]

55. Reading is fundamental

Unless you are suggesting this is a sock puppet...

[merbex]

2. And Correctrecord aka David Brock has spoken

and soon we will be seeing these talking points repeated ad nauseum on all social media.

Still doesn't change the fact that she is THE most flawed candidate EVER.

[SpareribSP]

3. Nice Spin!

[MariaThinks]

4. key points

3.The OIG report confirms that people throughout the State Department knew Secretary Clinton did not use a State.gov email account:

“OIG did find evidence that various staff and senior officials throughout the Department had discussions related to the Secretary’s use of non-Departmental systems, suggesting there was some awareness of Secretary Clinton’s practices.”

4. The OIG report contains no evidence of a breach of Secretary Clinton’s email. It does, in fact, contain evidence that the State Department was aware and proactive on issues of cyber-security:

[MariaThinks]

5. do these findings have weight? Are they official?

[BootinUp]

8. There will be no indictment is the general consensus, read the OIG conclusion

here, pretty tame:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512050989

[cali]

13. I agree. There will be no indictment. It's different for the wealthy and powerful

And it's very different for a former first lady, SoS and Senator.

I've always known how different is.

[BootinUp]

15. Basically, nothing will satifsy you, nothing, thats open minded of you. nt

[cali]

20. not so.

But let me tell you a little story.

When I was in my early twenties, my boyfriend and I were driving late at night in a state neither I or my parents lived in. My boyfriend was driving and he was buzzed. We got stopped. The cops were rough with him and I stupidly started mouthing off. We were both arrested. I used my phone call to call my father. He promptly called the governor. Not only were we released but the cops apologized. I admit I enjoyed it, but I knew damn well I was privileged.

[MariaThinks]

29. thanks

[speaktruthtopower]

6. A lot of her predecessors

were probably dinosaurs who didn't use e-mail at all.

[Else You Are Mad]

7. Well, I am disgusted that known propaganda...

Has become valid sources. This is especially disturbing for most of the media.

After all, it is much easier to just read off of the press release than to do any actual journalism.

[Dem2]

37. Yes indeed

Several times a day right-wing sources are used to bolster Bernie and attack Hillary.

God forbid anybody use an intelligent Democrat's perspective on the issues.

[Else You Are Mad]

41. An intelligent Democrat...

...that's made a living as a political operative used mainly to take down a politician's opponents. A recently converted conservative that just so happened to 'see the error of his ways' (read: make more money)

I have been a Democrat for a long time, and I do not trust him.

[Dem2]

44. I've seen him interviewed many many times

He's more intelligent AND informed than any DUer I am familiar with, Hillary is lucky as heck to have him.

[Else You Are Mad]

71. So you are fine Brock publicly calling a woman a slut....

For money? That is okay with you. I don't care if Brock and Hill have buried the hatchet, anyone that has no qualms with calling a woman a 'little bit slutty' for the sole purpose of defaming her and to make money is NOT someone worth any true Democrats defense. If he had any integrity he wouldn't have done it in the first place -- but I guess the millions he made meant more than the fact he publicly destroyed a woman's life.

Yeah, please try to defend that. He is the worst sort of misogynist.

ETA: He is such a great guy check out how he profited from destroying Anita Hill by clicking the link below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill. -- a book he disavowed after he realized he could make more money with the DLC Dems than the GOP.

[Dem2]

72. Lol

You people and your strawmen are not too much fun.

[Else You Are Mad]

73. How is what he admitted to doing...

A strawman argument?

[Dem2]

74. "So you are fine (with)..."

strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

[Else You Are Mad]

75. He has been quoted as calling Anita Hill

"A little bit nutty and a little bit slutty"

Don't believe me? Here is my citation:

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,167355,00.html

Please explain to me how that can be interpreted as other than utterly misogynistic and the worst sort of slut shaming: calling a woman a slut repeatedly on the national media for the sole reason to destroy her character

[Dem2]

77. Diversion.

I don't vouch for the character of every person who provides logical arguments and is very intelligent. I can assume that everybody I know has said repulsive or stupid things in their life including myself and I assume you as well.

Using a 15 year old article about character assassination to assassinate a person's character is not going to go over well with me.

[Else You Are Mad]

78. Let me put it this way:

I do. For the following reasons: 1) He is deeply misogynistic and only gave it up for even more money or 2) he has no problem being paid a lot of money to pretend he was misogynistic and moved on to a new job.

There really is no other option, he is an awful human being no matter which is the case. Think of it this way, would you be OK with a person that called your mom, wife, sister or daughter a slut and ruined her life in the most public manner because it happened 15 years ago?

[Dem2]

79. I'm neither a fan nor a critic of him

I see him make logical arguments and I shake my head in agreement. I agree that what he did was vile.

[Else You Are Mad]

80. What arguments he makes...

Are paid for arguments and they are so utterly transparently so, he will say whatever he is paid to say. Brock is one of the many failed and incompetent 90s 'operatives' that are failing her now. Hillary surrounds herself with advisors that are hurting her chances in the GE. I am a Democrat, so I want her to win in the GE, but she cannot have these people associated with her if she wants to win.

That is why I dislike Brock.

[Dem2]

81. I'm sorry, I found this segment and interview quite compelling

Some of the ONLY intelligent analysis I've seen on actually taking on Donald Trump.

[Else You Are Mad]

87. Wait, I never mentioned Trump

There is no need to make a Trump non sequitur, let's stick to arguing the usefulness of the has been Brock.

[Dem2]

88. Brock is the analyst

Watch the video or don't comment.

[Else You Are Mad]

89. Brock is not an analyst...

He is a propagandist. He supports whomever pays him the most money.

[Dem2]

90. Haterz gonna hate

Sorry, his analysis is captivating and spot on, you can remain ignorant if you like.

[Else You Are Mad]

91. My cousin used to be a congressman....

He knew him and has told me Brock is a for hire advocate.

[Dem2]

92. I guarantee you'd think "hmmm"

if you watched the video. Or you can just block all of your orifices and scream "no more input!"

[Else You Are Mad]

93. Or, I was told Brock was a scum bag back in 2010...

.... And nothing changed. And, my cousin tried to hire him as a fixer.

[cali]

9. It's embarrassing to see you guys posting hill propaganda with a straight face.

[BootinUp]

12. Kidding?

After the months and months of RW attacks on this? C'mon cali.

You are free to completely ignore it if you think it is worthless.

[cali]

14. It's pure propaganda.

And no, I don't ignore the use of it.

[MariaThinks]

30. What will you do when Hillary is President?

poor, easily embarrassed cali.

[Amishman]

34. same thing the rest of us Bernie supports will do, prepare for the next primary

change is needed, real change. If it does not come this election, then we try harder with the next

[oasis]

16. Party pooper.

[morningfog]

27. It's poop alright.

[jmg257]

17. HA HA HA!! Well that is certainly finding that silver lining. She screwed up...purposely.

#1 & 2) Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives.

#3) In addition to interviewing current and former officials in DS and IRM, OIG interviewed other
senior Department officials with relevant knowledge who served under Secretary Clinton,
including the Under Secretary for Management, who supervises both DS and IRM; current and
former Executive Secretaries; and attorneys within the Office of the Legal Adviser. These officials
all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s
server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These
officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a
personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff also testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi
that she was unaware of anyone being consulted about the Secretary’s exclusive use of a personal email address.15

#4) Similarly, the FAM contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU information on
their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards
are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption
of SBU information with products certified by NIST.149 With regard to encryption, Secretary
Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and
techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing
third party experts.”150 Although this report does not address the safety or security of her
system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her
private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.

#5)Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email
account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making
up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014.
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations
should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary
requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email
account on her private server.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Ah brock, propaganda dismissed on principle

[Dem2]

38. Yes, but we're supposed to just gobble up the right-wing sources posted here

by the Bernie side, amiright?

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Like the report?you mean the State Dept

Amirite

[Dem2]

48. Boomboomchickaboomboom

You know I'm right, noice deflection though, I know that skill requires significant practice time

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Right, maybe about the weather

so you think this is RW?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/State-Dept.-OIG-Report-on-HRC-Emails.pdf

That is the actual link to the fucking full report. Yes, they happened to host it. I might later, There are reasons I have not written a story here. But that is the FULL FUCKING REPORT. So is the state department Right Wing? For that matter is CNN right wing (that you could make an argument) But is the state department RIGHR FUCKING WING?

You people are incredible in your willingness to hide your head in the sand. This is the weakest, most compromised candidate since at least Mondale.

[Dem2]

52. Ain't nothing gonna come of it

I see those here drooling at attacking Hillary, but I know how these "scoldings" go, been alive through dozens of 'em.

So yeah, I'm hiding my head in the sand, but it's candy sand, made out of chocolate! Yum!!

Boomboomchickaboomboom! Woooh!

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. You are all sounding like REPUBLICANS defending Nixon.

[Dem2]

66. Godwin

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Ok Republicans defeding Bush

same diff

[BootinUp]

58. Going off the report is fine, but judicial watch the site you chose as the host

is definitely right wing. They were created way back for the express purpose of attacking the Clintons. While you are looking at the report, don't forget to read the shocking CONCLUSION.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. What part of they are hosting are you mssing?

that is easy to download. the WAPO has it also embedded at their site. It is harder to download.

Now go download and fucking read.

If I decide to FINALLY put a time line up... there are real reasons I cannot do an in depth story, you might be able to find the actual fucking report at reporting san diego, like the same fucking government document. Clear enough for you?

[floppyboo]

69. the conclusion reads:

"... the office of the Secretary ... [has] been slow ... to manage effectively the legal requirements..."

Is that a slap on the wrist, or is it an acknowledgement of less than legal activity? I tend to think the latter is intended, and worded this way to leave room open for the FBI's conclusions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I am reading this and this is damning

[riderinthestorm]

19. I'm starting to feel sorry for you all. It's going to be a brutal awakening when the FBI releases

I'm on the record saying I don't want any indictment recommended or implemented. Its terrible for the Democratic party and down ticket candidates.

That said, this report is damning. And it's going to be the most "kind" to Hillary since its her own State Department doing the investigation and reporting on itself.

The FBI report will be even more explicit.

The fact that this hasn't been a Friday night news dump is very troubling. ..

[BootinUp]

22. A lot of people have read the report, and the conclusions they draw

span the whole range but land along partisan lines essentially. I think that speaks for itself. If you have looked at the report and especially the CONCLUSION by the OIG, its clear even he sees it as systemic, not a gross violation by Sec. Clinton.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

95. You write like you never read the IG report.

Your brockian fantasy post is the most twisted POS, up is down, right is wrong, black is white mi d game I have yet seen. A masterful twisting of reality. That is impressive. Congrats.

[BootinUp]

97. And your outrage over broken email rules is similary impressive. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

98. Two secret missions were blown.

All indications are that Hillary's cavalier attitude with her emails and security caused those failures.

Who knows what other gems the russians, israelis, Syria, or the Chinese got because of her hubris?
Who knows how many lives were affected or lost.

[BootinUp]

99. Haven't seen any reputable source say anything like that. What are you reading these days? nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

100. Obviously. with the blinders you are sporting,

given the initial post, you would cross the street against heavy, high speed traffic to avoid meeting those type of facts.

[BootinUp]

102. Facts not in evidence, and not presented by you. lol.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

104. I don't need this bullshit. IGNORE

[COLGATE4]

107. And they won't be presented in evidence, either for the reason

that they are part of someone's fevered imagination. 'How can we make this blah report on Hillary breaking some State Dept. rules more damning?" "Well, why don't we say that she compromised at least two SUPER SECRET international missions!. That'll get them all riled up."

[mmonk]

21. Brock crock.

[oasis]

67. Expectation obliteration.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. More like Confirmation Bias.

[Autumn]

23. The scandal isn't her email. It's the fact that she didn't follow guidelines for preserving

Federal records . Guidelines set by the State Department. It seems the meme is to focus on e mails and not her failure to comply with her departments own rules. Not to mention the little many lies that she has told about this situation being exposed in that report. You ought to read it.

[arely staircase]

24. That really pissed the right people off. nt

[morningfog]

26. BWHAHAHHAHAAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laugh.

[LAS14]

28. k & r

[GreatGazoo]

31. 1 2 3 o'clock 4 o'clock Brock

5 6 7 o'clock 8 o'clock Brock

9 10 11 o'clock 12 o'clock Brock

We're gonna Brock around the clock tonight...

[farleftlib]

39. LOL

Good one. The OP is simply brockalicious......

[Amishman]

32. wicked spin job in that article, Brock would be proud!

oh wait, that really is straight from Brock's PAC website dedicated to spreading pro Clinton misinformation.

[glowing]

33. Ok, Brock sending out talking points already.

This has to be bad for Clinton if it's bullet pointed for everyone to lap up in the media.

[BootinUp]

35. LOL, that was funny. Of course she has been pillaried for months

and the report actually does debunk the myth it was hacked. And as I pointed out above you can read the CONCLUSION of the OIG for yourself. Not too alarming really.

[Amishman]

40. The report confirms that there were multiple hacking attempts

This is like declaring your house to be burglar-proof after one person tries to jimmy the lock and fails.

a successful hack attempt could easily not be detected.

[frylock]

43. cough*Brockshit*cough

[Ichingcarpenter]

46. Brock Samson has spoken

From the Venture brothers;

the family's bodyguard, the ultra-violent and psycho secret agent Brock Samson,

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Here's something that jumps out at me, from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html

It also added new detail about Mrs. Clinton’s motivation for using the private server, which she has said was set up for convenience. In November 2010, her deputy chief of staff for operations prodded her about “putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” Mrs. Clinton, however, replied that she would consider a separate address or device “but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

So--- she values her own privacy and security, but she wants the taxpayers to fund a "manhattan project" to break the encryption on the rest of our phones.

Got it.

[pmorlan1]

56. Delusional

Even establishment flunkie Chris Cillizza isn't this blind.

This is a bad day for Clinton's presidential campaign. Period. For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Just started reading the damn report

and it is not good.

[pmorlan1]

59. I don't expect it to be

I looked for a link to it earlier today when this news broke and couldn't find one anywhere. I finally found one when I got home from work. I'll be reading it tonight. When I see people like Chris Cillizza writing a scathing column about it I know it won't look good. He is establishment through and through. If she lost him...

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. CNN is calling it a scathing report

so getting more coffee... this is a really bad day for Clinton

[rladdi]

62. The State Department was well aware of Clinton using her home email system. She emailed over

200 state employees during her duty at the State. Yet they stayed silent and never approached her about using that system. WhY? Why are them now speaking out. I would suspect several State Dept. employees are working for the GOP

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Bravo, that was a talking point that was used early

on... congrats

[ChairmanAgnostic]

101. they were ORDERED TO DROP THE ISSUE

look at the report. It clearly states that fact.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. IOWs ...

There were Policies and Regulations, that may or may not have been followed; and then, there were Agency/Office/Departmental practices, that were followed ... something that any who has EVER worked in the real world knows.

[cliffordu]

65. One real takeaway:

None of the others had an unsecured Windows computer in their houses.

Billion dollar security infrastructures cannot defend a Windows PC when it's in your home.



I'm sorry, true believers, if you don't know how goddammed dangerous and fucking stupid this was, there is nothing I can do to help.

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Here are NINE takeaways from a more objective source...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-emails-state-report-223574

[BootinUp]

84. I suggest you try to get over it. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. Mmmkay.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

86. 5 key points from the report

5 KEY POINTS FROM THE REPORT

Hillary Clinton should have asked for approval to use a private email address and server for official business. Had she done so, the State Department would have said no.

She should have surrendered all of her emails before leaving the administration. Not doing so violated department policies that comply with the Federal Records Act.

When her deputy suggested putting her on a State Department account, she expressed concern about her personal emails being exposed.

In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us."

The State Department began disciplinary proceedings against Scott Gration, then the American ambassador to Kenya, for refusing to stop using his personal email for official business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[ChairmanAgnostic]

103. too many real facts,

as compared to the spin-based trash that our fiendly neighborhood hillarians are putting out there as a last resort.

[bigtree]

94. k&r

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

96. 5 interesting points! Lol

[Cobalt Violet]

105. her judgement is so poor. This all could have been avoided if she had a shread of sense.

She made this bed. No amount of propaganda will make it go away.

[BootinUp]

106. Opinions vary I have found. Her judgement on the issues that matter

vs. the pukes and Trumps is what will determine this election. The public is going to write this off for the overblown scandal it is.