2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFor those who don't recall, Hillary left the Inspector General position at State unfilled
Hillary never filled the vacant IG position at the State Department in 4 years. Now we see why.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)People should read the other audits from the OIG.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Who is going to stop her from doing whatever she wants if she becomes President?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)shanti
(21,675 posts)riversedge
(70,192 posts)the Inspector General for SOS.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)The fact remains that there was a permanent IG installed in less than half a year after Kerry took over.
LiberalFighter
(50,892 posts)riversedge
(70,192 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,892 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)No way they would go along with Obama on that one.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Perhaps you're thinking of justices nominated to the Supreme Court requiring Senate confirmation. Department of State Inspectors General are appointed by the president, based on the nominations forwarded by the Secretary of State.
The Clintons Have Not Changed: The Clintonian War on the IGs
By William K. Black
February 23, 2016 Bloomington, MN
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she has experienced a Road to Damascus conversion from her roots as a leader of the New Democrats the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. When exactly this conversion occurred is never stated, but an interesting fact has emerged that demonstrates it did not occur during her service as the Secretary of State. A Wall Street Journal story provides the key facts, but none of the analysis.
Newly released emails indicate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top staff were involved in the selection process for the State Departments internal watchdog, a position that ultimately went unfilled throughout her four-year tenure.
The WSJs angle is that such involvement in the selection of the Inspector General (IG) is a threat to the IGs vital independence. True, and also true as the story notes that Hillary was far from rare as an agency or department head in seeking to select behind the scenes the supposedly independent IGs.
The function of the IG is to speak truth to power. Naturally, power hates IGs with a purple passion. Government leaders are most likely to hate having its abuses made public by IG when the government leader is secretly acting in concert with immensely powerful private leaders for their mutual benefit at the expense of the public.
What the WSJ missed is that the Clintons, for decades, have sought to destroy the independence and effectiveness of the IGs precisely because of the threat that they pose of blowing the whistle on these abuses. The Obama administration, of course, is famous for its prosecutions of those who blow the whistle on such abuses. The real story is not that Hillary attempted to select a lap dog as IG the real story is that for her entire tenure as Secretary, four years, she left unfilled the leadership position of the only institution in the State Department dedicated to maintaining integrity and preventing the abuse of public power to aid cronies. That aid, of course, comes with the clear expectation that the cronies will make the head of the State Department wealthy as soon as she or he steps down. There is no possible defense for that, and it does not happen accidentally. The primary blame goes to President Obama, who made no nomination for the position for the entire four years. It wasnt Republican intransigence that explains this scandal.
CONTINUED...
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/03/clintons-not-changed-clintonian-war-igs.html#more-10101
Maybe you were thinking of a way to insert disinformation?
riversedge
(70,192 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Senate confirms. Here's a link for my fellow Doubting Thomases:
From a strategic and leadership perspective, I understand that the responsibilities of the position to which I have been nominated are great. Based on the significant issues facing the Department of State, it is clear to me that assuming the leadership role of Inspector General will be challenging and rewarding. I look forward to this task, if confirmed.
If confirmed, I pledge to:
Ensure that the Department of State Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent and objective organization that provides timely, robust, fact-based oversight, transparency, and accountability to the programs and operations of the Department of State;
Consult stakeholders regularly (including the Government Accountability Office and affected communities)
Efficiently and effectively deploy OIG resources to those areas that present the highest risk to the Department of State;
Collaborate with other inspectors general who have potentially overlapping interests, jurisdiction, and programs;
Ensure whistleblowers have a safe forum to voice grievances and are protected from retaliation; and
Aggressively protect taxpayer funds against fraud, waste, and abuse.
CONTINUED...
https://diplopundit.net/2013/09/30/senate-confirms-steve-linick-state-dept-finally-gets-an-inspector-general-after-2066-days/
No wonder Hillary didn't want to see an Inspector General appointed.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)In researching how an IG gets appointed (as there are no links above) I discovered:
What a State Department's inspector general can tell us about open government
by Alex Howard
Sunlight Foundation, MAY 26, 2016, 4:15 P.M.
The release of a critical report by the U.S. State Departments inspector general on former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons email practices answers questions that have lingered since last March, raises new ones and creates a moment to reaffirm our expectations for accountability from public servants and their staff.
The former secretary of state's contention that she complied with the law evades the broader issue: She relied exclusively on a private, unaccountable email system that shielded public records from internal and external scrutiny, disregarded internal efforts that should have led to a change in that system, and then made a series of decisions that created much more difficulty for investigators auditing the systems to assess security or classification issues.
Unfortunately, Clintons arrangement, instead of protecting the public trust, seems designed to do the opposite shield information from any potential public view.
Electronic records are getting harder to manage, but government security rules, regulations and laws exist for a reason. While compliance with them can be time-consuming, no official should be above the law. Proper records management empowers public oversight, and setting up a parallel email system allowed Clinton to evade the Freedom of Information Act, congressional oversight and the reach of inspectors general all of which play a critical role holding agencies accountable.
Since Clinton left office without turning over her email records to the State Department, it has become extremely difficult to determine which records were governmental and which were not. Allowing a full, independent legal review of a cabinet secretarys email account (covering both personal correspondence and official business) would have been an extraordinary concession for Clinton to make but so was using a private email server exclusively for government business.
Gaps in the email trove turned over to the Department of State also drive home how problematic it was for Clintons private lawyers to review records to determine what was public business or not. Given that emails with government business have been found that were not turned over, public trust in that process is understandably shaken.
In addition to the concerns about email practices and retention, the inspector general report raises questions about the security of the systems used to transmit data. The apparent disregard for internal checks and balances regarding securing legal authority or security assurance is far short of what we should expect of political appointees and their staffs. We expect government officials to respect security warnings when transmitting sensitive data. If legal and IT practices are in question, the agency and its leadership have a responsibility to address those and work together to develop secure mobile options for those who need them.
The report also indicates that Clintons former staff did not fully cooperate with investigators. The public should not have to expect the Department of Justice or a federal judge to compel executive branch secretaries to explain how they used personal email or detail how they protect and secure confidential diplomatic communications.
CONTINUED w/links, resources and stuff that helps us know...
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/05/26/what-a-state-departments-inspector-general-can-tell-us-about-open-government/
Amazing what one can learn reading DU, KoKo!
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Nobody cares.
She is the nominee.
Deal With It
She won't be indicted.
No laws were broken.
It's a "review".
What else?
Bernie's fault.
She's not adept at desktop email.
It was convenient.
edited to add:Kick
jeff47
(26,549 posts)who was nominated to Obama by Kerry, appointed by Obama, and confirmed.
If GOP obstruction was the entire problem, that could not have happened.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)The private email server, Sidney Blumenthal....I can't even imagine the emails we haven't seen and the deals made that were not State Department business. We'll never know because there's no audit trail.
She didn't fill the IG position on purpose, so she could do whatever she wanted with no oversight. Haughty.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)It's my understanding that all State Department emails were under Hillary's control; there were no copies saved on government servers. She provided copies of her emails, but we have to take her word for it that she provided the ALL. I don't believe that was the case, especially after reading the IG report.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Get some popcorn and be prepared to be amazed.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I appreciate the information.
Darb
(2,807 posts)If your opinion mattered. So no worries, just keep on making shit up as you go along.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Dr. Evil I tell ya, Dr. Evil.
We need to stop her at all costs.
annavictorious
(934 posts)in Benghazi because everyone knows that the SOS controls the military.
annavictorious
(934 posts)It's the president's job to make the appointment. The SOS does not have the authority to appoint an inspector general. It was Obama who left the acting IG in place during Clinton's years at State.
Wait...if Obama left the acting IG in place, that means there was an IG during Clinton's tenure. Darn it! There goes another phony conspiracy theory...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/us/politics/top-posts-remain-vacant-throughout-obama-administration.html?_r=0
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)for four years got a lot done under the radar, and it would likely take another four years to uncover. Endless investigations.