State Department Audit Concludes Hillary Clinton Lied, Broke Federal Rules with Private Email Server

[NightHawkeye]

BREAKING: State Department Audit Concludes Hillary Clinton Lied, Broke Federal Regulations with Private Email Server | RedState

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules through her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, a State Department audit has concluded.
...
This is the first, and easiest to decide, issue with respect to Clinton’s use of her email server. It is manifestly obvious, and has been from the beginning, that Clinton’s use of the private email server did not allow the State Department to comply with Federal law regarding the maintenance of government records – which of course was exactly the point and the whole reason she set up the private email in the first place.

The second and more serious issue, which is still under Federal investigation, is whether Clinton’s arrangement also violated Federal law with respect to the proper handling of classified material, and whether sensitive or classified information was disclosed to unauthorized persons thereby. Clinton has steadfastly denied that any such thing has occurred, but then she has also steadfastly maintained that her use of the server in the first place was in accordance with State Department rules – which we now know is categorically false, even according to the Obama State Department.​

 

[wing2000]

Just to clarify....are you accepting State Department Inspector General findings?

When the State Department's Benghazi Report was issued, it was summarily ignored.....with umpteen congressional reports to follow...which to this day, are also being ignored.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Just to clarify....are you accepting State Department Inspector General findings?

When the State Department's Benghazi Report was issued, it was summarily ignored.....with umpteen congressional reports to follow...which to this day, are also being ignored.

When a department's IG finds AGAINST prominent individuals of said department the findings are rarely in error. (The same cannot be said for vice-versa.)

 

[cow451]

When a department's IG finds AGAINST prominent individuals of said department the findings are rarely in error. (The same cannot be said for vice-versa.)

IOW, I accept when I agree.

 

[NightHawkeye]

IOW, I accept when I agree.

Incorrect. See post #3.

 

[cow451]

Incorrect. See post #3.

I did.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I did.

Then which part of ...

"When a department's IG finds AGAINST prominent individuals of said department the findings are rarely in error."​

... was unclear?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Then which part of ...

"When a department's IG finds AGAINST prominent individuals of said department the findings are rarely in error."​

... was unclear?

Uh......the part that is true?

 

[Uncle Siggy]

So I'm curious as to who the first one will be that comes along and argues she only broke some insignificant rules not federal laws, even though the rules are derived from federal laws...

 

[civilwarbuff]

So I'm curious as to who the first one will be that comes along and argues she only broke some insignificant rules not federal laws, even though the rules are derived from federal laws...

I thought that is what the Dems have been saying all along....

 

[cow451]

Then which part of ...

"When a department's IG finds AGAINST prominent individuals of said department the findings are rarely in error."​

... was unclear?

It's very clear. If you don't like the next ruling, .........

 

[wing2000]

When a department's IG finds AGAINST prominent individuals of said department the findings are rarely in error. (The same cannot be said for vice-versa.)

Noted....I'll keep this statement in mind when the inevitable Congressional investigation(S) start over the next few years.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am for rooting out any crooked politician R or D or I or S or whatever other letter you can think of.........

 

[cow451]

So I'm curious as to who the first one will be that comes along and argues she only broke some insignificant rules not federal laws, even though the rules are derived from federal laws...

Findings and consequence are two distinct processes. An audit is a "finding" while consequences/penalties are decided in a separate legal process. So the "significance" is to be determined later.

Every "regulation" is derived from a law. Breaking a regulation doesn't automatically put one in a courtroom. There is far more to this process.

 

[wing2000]

Fair assessment....

(I would love to see a security audit performed for ALL government agencies that includes all congressional offices and staff....the findings would embarrass quite a few including those crowing about Clinton)


The inspector general report is not aimed solely at Mrs. Clinton. It faults several previous Secretaries of State for lapses. It also criticizes the broader lapses at the State Department, especially regarding failures to keep adequate records of electronic communications including email dating back nearly 20 years [back to Sec. of State Powell in the Bush Administration].

But Inspector general Steve Linick, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, singles out Mrs. Clinton for the security risks involved in using a private email account as well as her failure to immediately turn over thousands of pages of work emails upon leaving government in 2013.

The inspector general noted that internal rules about email and cybersecurity had grown “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated” by the time Mrs. Clinton came into office.

“Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,” the report concluded

http://www.wsj.com/articles/watchdo...mail-practices-at-state-department-1464188308

 

[cow451]

Fair assessment....

Cease and desist with that "fairness" baloney.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I am for rooting out any crooked politician R or D or I or S or whatever other letter you can think of.........

That pretty much describes just about all of them...

 

[Uncle Siggy]

I thought that is what the Dems have been saying all along....

Shhhhh...

 

[RDKirk]

So I'm curious as to who the first one will be that comes along and argues she only broke some insignificant rules not federal laws, even though the rules are derived from federal laws...

What is says is:

“Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

The problem with attempting a criminal prosecution on this basis is that the policies of the Department are by order of the Department Secretary and it's the Department secretary who is charged with enforcing the policies of his or her own Department.

 

[Vylo]

Isn't this the stuff they were angry at Powell about, and why they updated the rules in 2009 to make people turn over their emails?