Clinton E-Mail Use Violated Rules, State Department Audit Finds

[Beet]

Well, this report is a f'ing disaster.

I know you guys know I love to fret but I usually fret about future outcomes. I often defend Clinton on substantive matters.

First of all, this isn't a case of "everybody else does it." No one else does it. Secretary Powell used a personal e-mail address exclusively yes, but that was installed for him by the Department staff, so it has the imprimatur of bureaucratic approval. Also, the relevant rule in the Department Manual was not promulgated until 2005. The rule clearly distinguishes Clinton's situation from the "300+ other high-level government officials" who use personal e-mail for government business. It states that normal day-to-day operations are to be conducted on an approved electronic platform. Clinton's platform was not approved.

Yes, it is true that Department IT staff, including senior bureaucratic staff, were involved in discussions of her e-mail system and sent e-mails to her private e-mail. And some IT staff, including senior bureaucratic staff, were aware that she used a private e-mail server.

However, this appears to be a matter of bureaucratic staff not having the will to stand up to the Secretary and say, "No, this is against the rules." Complicating this is the fact that there was no precedent of any Secretary using a government e-mail address. So who is going to say, well there's this obscure rule in the Department Manual that prohibits a private e-mail server, to the Secretary? Apparently no one. Granted, many Manual rules (such as those requiring e-mails be printed and filed) were widely flaunted, but the report highlights that the Ambassador to Kenya was disciplined in part over this particular rule.

But worst of all is the part where there's an e-mail from the Executive Secretariat mentioning FOIA requests as a factor in whether to set up a government e-mail addresses for Clinton. This suggests he believed that she was using a private e-mail in part to skirt FOIA requests. There's a reason why the probability of an indictment is up 6 percentage points on PredictIt today.

Needless to say I am furious at the Secretary. This election is about us, not her, and I supported her because I thought she was the best candidate for us. Now I am not so sure. John Edwards proves that sometimes people who others invest a lot in, have a reckless disregard for the hopes of their own supporters.

So congrats, Clinton haters, you win. When/if Clinton is indicted then I would support her delegates to draft Warren, but the Sanders folks would make a strong pitch to take over the party. In any case I am probably out of discussing politics on forums for the cycle. I have a personal life, and this just exacerbates my neurotic tendencies.

[Beet]

The report also says that Department employees are required by rule to sign a form that indicates they have surrendered all records, but that of Albright, Powell, Rice and Clinton, none of them were asked to sign the form. So you could have a defense that says, yes, the Secretary was above the Foreign Affairs Manual rules, but so were all of the Secretaries. So it was more a matter of undue deference given to the position, than a character of Clinton herself.

The Executive Secretariat's FOIA comments are what is most worrying vis-a-vis indictment that I can see right now.

[Beet]

I can't tell if "HC Soul Sister" is a troll.

In any case, as far as the public interest goes, I think I can make a case that it's in the public interest for candidates running in major elections not to be indicted. Let's be real here, an indictment amounts to a judgement from unelected law enforcement officials that a certain person should not be allowed to run. That is a major problem when an election is already well underway and voters are therefore deprived of meaningful choices. If that happened in every election, what would be the point of elections then? So strictly arguing from the perspective of the public interest, it's devastating to the public interest. That goes no matter who the person is or what party they belong to.

[Beet]

Also, a little troubling in this report is how much of it is a Hillary roast. The authors have to be aware of the presidential campaign going on. One of the lead investigators is a former Grassley staffer. One major area of concern is that from the facts hereby presented, Clinton (a) e-mailed with dozens, if not hundreds of State Department staffers on her private e-mail address, (b) low level IT staffers were aware she had a private e-mail server and that an external consultant was working on it, and (c) the head of the department that oversees the CIO and DS's departments was aware of it, and (d) "many" members of administrative bureaucratic departments sent e-mail to her server,

YET

Both the CIO an DS deny have approved the server, or being aware of the "scope" of her use of the server. So low-level IT staff, the boss of CIO and DS, were aware of her e-mail server, but the CIO and DS were not aware of it for four years (despite knowing she had a clintonemail.com domain)? Isn't this something the OIG should have been concerned about? After all, it doesn't shy away from calling out staff members in other areas of the report. There's no evidence OIG ever pressed the CIO and DS if they ever attempted to find out more about Clinton's e-mail situation, and if not, why not.

This is the equivalent of a traffic cop saying, "I was never consulted about her speeding, and if she had asked I would have said she shouldn't speed," yet sitting there every day as she drives by at 70 mph. Now news reports are making it seem like her private e-mail situation was some kind of secret. Hence I am concerned this report is not fair and balanced, and emphasizes the negative with respect to SoS. But in doing so, it fails to hold the CIO and DS to account. Of course, these two individuals also have their own reputations to protect so they will minimize their knowledge of the situation and claim in retrospect to be as conservative as possible. But political appointees are not always aware of the technical issues or the details of compliance, so these two do have an obligation, if they become aware of any serious breach of security, to raise it.

There is no evidence OIG ever attempted to pursue these questions. This raises the worry that OIG was not impartial.

EDIT: As to the possibility CIO and DS were intimidated from above, their boss, Patrick Kennedy agreed to be interviewed, which would suggest he's not under criminal investigation. The crazy thing is, after reading this whole report I'm still not clear as to what happened.