Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:48 AM May 2016

WaPo Editorial: Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules

The more we learn, the worse it looks.

Deny all you want. This is now serious. I don't know what it portends, but the profile of this debacle was just significantly raised.

And no, the Post is not pro-Trump. Heaven knows, it's not pro-Bernie.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



By Editorial Board May 25 at 7:13 PM

HILLARY CLINTON’S use of a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 has been justifiably criticized as an error of judgment. What the new report from the State Department inspector general makes clear is that it also was not a casual oversight. Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.

The 83-page report declares that “beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011,” the department revised its Foreign Affairs Manual and “issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so.” Ms. Clinton didn’t.

During her tenure, State Department employees were told that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit information that was sensitive but unclassified, or SBU. If they needed to transmit SBU information outside the department’s network, they were told to ask information specialists for help. The report said there is no evidence that Ms. Clinton ever asked, “despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information that was marked as SBU.” On June 28, 2011, a cable was sent to all diplomatic and consular posts over her signature warning that personal email accounts could be compromised and officials should “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” At the time, Ms. Clinton was doing exactly that.

On March 11, 2011, an assistant secretary sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Ms. Clinton, noting a “dramatic increase” in attempts to compromise personal email accounts of senior department officials, possibly for spying or blackmail. That didn’t stop Ms. Clinton either. There were also numerous notifications that some emails (but not all) are considered federal records under the law and that she should print and file those in her office and, before leaving office, surrender all emails dealing with department business. She did so only about two years later, in December 2014.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo Editorial: Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules (Original Post) cali May 2016 OP
Oh dang it! I seem to have read the limit of articles allowed for this month. Crap! bjo59 May 2016 #1
Clear your cookies. n/t PoliticAverse May 2016 #3
Thank you! bjo59 May 2016 #8
I still dont care MFM008 May 2016 #2
It's not about whether you care. cali May 2016 #5
It's a negative, but I don't see it as a huge deal. Vattel May 2016 #4
The conclusion that it was not a "casual oversight" is troubling. democrank May 2016 #6
For me, this has ZERO to do with Bernie cali May 2016 #7
It'll be interesting to see how the usual columnists at the WaPo Bohunk68 May 2016 #9
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
4. It's a negative, but I don't see it as a huge deal.
Thu May 26, 2016, 05:04 AM
May 2016

Much bigger negatives suggest that she should not be entrusted with the powers of the chief executive and CIC: her foolish support for violent regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; her unconstitutional position on war powers; her defense of killing children in Gaza; her desire for a no fly zone in Syria; her support for the Patriot Act; her support for the coup in Honduras; her support for immoral deportation of immigrants; etc.

democrank

(11,094 posts)
6. The conclusion that it was not a "casual oversight" is troubling.
Thu May 26, 2016, 06:02 AM
May 2016

But according to the new rules handed down by the Democratic Establishment, one must excuse and support anything and everything Hillary says and does...or you`re a Socialist Hillary Hater.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WaPo Editorial: Clinton’s...