I’m not sure what to write about this, except that it has to be reported because the Clinton e-mail scandal has been so extensively discussed here since early in 2015. If it’s surprising to anyone, I pity them. If they try to keep denying it, I have contempt for them. If they don’t understand why this issue matters (Bernie…!), I pity them and have contempt for them.
Today the State Department’s inspector general’s report on the Clinton’s e-mail practices was released to the media. The report makes it clear that Clinton intentionally set up the private server to avoid scrutiny of her personal e-mails, and the various Stygian activities revealed there. In order to do that, she willfully and knowingly violated State Department policies, and placed national security at potential risk.
The report concluded that Clinton failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have allowed it had she requested approval, because of the “security risks in doing so.” Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents, the inspector general concluded, and her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed. Clinton should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. She did not, choosing instead to provide those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.
So she was not following policy. What she did was not approved. She did knowingly take risks with sensitive national security information. It wasn’t because she didn’t make “the best choice” that all of this occurred. Clinton was making the best choice for her…her career, her ambitions, her schemes. The nation’s interests were secondary. If that.
According to the report, a top Clinton aide was warned in 2010 that the system did not properly preserve records and responded that Clinton’s system had been granted legal approval.There is no evidence of any review by legal counsel, however. Even though department policy mandated throughout Clinton’s tenure that day-to-day operations should be conducted via authorized means, the IG report found no evidence that the Secretary of State “requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”
State’s policy mandated that employees use approved and secure devices to transmit information known as SBU (“sensitive but unclassified”) outside State’s OpenNet network. If an employee used non-department addresses to transmit such information, they were instructed to reach out to the Bureau of Information Resource Management to do so safely. The report:
“However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU.”
Meanwhile, despite Clinton’s insistence over the past year that sensitive information handled by her was secure, the report states that “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.” Nonetheless, the report states,
“…OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”
In a wonderful example of how biased journalists enable corrupt politicians they support with weasel words, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza writes that the report “badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server and whether she complied fully with the laws in place governing electronic communication.”
Complicates? What’s that supposed to mean…that squaring Clinton’s spin, deceit and outright lies with the facts now really requires the convoluted rhetorical gymnastics she and Bill excel at? Truthful, factual, honest explanations don’t get “complicated” by the truth. They are supported by it. There is very little in the report that wasn’t strongly indicated by what we did know a year ago. All the drip-drip-dripping since then has just required Clinton to throw up more static, smoke and disinformation.
What Cillizza should have written was, “As long suspected, the report shows that Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have been lying about this.”
Here is the piece de resistance: the report says that neither Clinton nor Huma Abedin cooperated with the investigation. Can the Clinton Corrupted possibly give an explanation for this that doesn’t reflect badly on Hillary?
The IG’s report is news, but it should not be news. So what do I write about it,“I told you so”? Are there really people reading this post who didn’t know that Clinton was intentionally violating State policy, did mishandle documents, did place American interests at risk, and did so purely to keep her e-mails about whatever webs she was weaving out of the hands of the press, Congress and the Freedom of Information Act? Are there really people who believed her? Still believe her? Really?
Oh…the position of Clinton’s camp is that the IG is in the pocket of Republicans. That’s right: an Obama-appointed Inspector General is part of a vast, right wing-conspiracy against Clinton.
Maybe I’ll write this: Hillary certainly is making it as difficult as possible for an ethicist to advocate voting for her to avoid electing the worst, most unqualified, most unfit and least trustworthy candidate for President in our history.