Forbes : State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton . However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.
It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton addresses supporters at the IBEW Local 11 union hall during a campaign event in the city of Commerce, outside of Los Angeles, Tuesday. (ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)
First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton. In other words, the report does not, and cannot, talk about the most serious issues. It is about a sideshow. If you are serious about the email charges against Hillary, you should keep your powder dry until at least Clinton is interviewed by the FBI in a matter of weeks, and then until the result of that probe is released.
Moreover, it is no accident that this report does not deal with the most serious issues: The FBI expressly told the State Department IG to stay away from classified records. That would have involved the State Department IG interfering with and possibly foreshadowing the FBI criminal investigation. But, this meant the FBI left the State Department IG with a subject involving much less grounds for potential criticism of Clinton, as we see in this report.
Second, there is not that much new information about Clinton in it. Certainly, the widely-reported fact that it’s an 83-page report makes it sound like it is big. But half is appendices. Half of the rest is not about the Secretary’s emails, but about cybersecurity. Of the two-dozen pages that are even remotely about Secretaries’ emails, a lot is taken up by retracing the dreary history of records and archival policy. The remainder involves all the secretaries going back two decades – not just Clinton and Powell, who are alike, but also ones of no particular interest, like Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice, and also John Kerry. There’s just not a lot of new facts about Clinton.
Look at the press coverage. You will not find mentions of major new facts in the IG report.
Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard.
Fourth, the big criticism in the report is regarding the failure to print and file email in a retrievable way. But as the report shows, the Office of the Secretary of State has rarely succeeded in doing that. They either always have better things to do, or it is not a high enough priority, or there are technical difficulties, or turnover. Very likely a stingy Congress does not want to hire enough personnel to have crews doing that throughout the government. In any event, they rarely get that done. Since that is a general problem, why pin it particularly on Clinton?
Fifth, to the extent that she is criticized because “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report is making a legal judgment that is not particularly strong. Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies.
A report that says so little new against Clinton, amounts to a vindication.
Tags
Who is online
33 visitors
The media is trying to build up Trump and tear down Clinton to make sure it is a close race throughout. The media no longer acts as unpartisan journalists.
The report does not, in any way, vindicate Clinton and it makes quite clear that she and Powell were not similarly situated. At the time Powell was Secretary of State, the department's email system only allowed communication among department staff and had no Internet access. Powell requested a private line in his office so he could use his private email account to communicate with people outside the department. It was not a secret because his internet access was done with the knowledge and assistance of the IT unit. Essentially, Powell was just trying to get the same access to the Internet that he had at home. Powell had two computers on his desk: one for intra-agency communication; the other for communication outside the department. Guidelines on the use of personal email was much less developed at that time.
Hillary, on the other hand, ignored the guidelines when she was in office and not only used a private email account for all her government emails, but also ran those emails through a private server. A private email account can be set up in minutes. A private server requires a substantial investment, in depth IT knowledge, and constant monitoring. And rather than be transparent about what she was doing, Hillary went to great lengths to keep it secret. At least two people who asked about it were told to shut up and mind their business. The existence of her private server only came to light when Judicial Watch forced the information out of her in a lawsuit. There is no logical reason for a private server other than to completely circumvent the government's system and avoid disclosing anything through a Freedom of Information Request or a Congressional inquiry. Plus, it gives her the ability to destroy all the correspondence by wiping the server as she apparently tried to do. If she can't be convicted of violating federal law regarding her emails, then maybe they can get this liar for perjury . . . after all, that's what snared Bill and set impeachment proceedings in motion.
Yada Yada Yada.
The espionage laws are set up to punish people that, you know, commit espionage. Whatever Clinton did, there is no contention that she was selling state secrets.
Petraeus knowingly gave classified material to a non authorized person. Some Republicans want Trump to name him as his vice president running mate.
Clinton was careless, and for the people who really feel strongly about that they don't have to vote for her. I think she learned her lesson.
I think the idea that Hillary Clinton is this global crime kingpin is ridiculous.
People today simply don't know how to put anything in perspective.
When Trump says something, anything, about anything, we don't know if we can take him at his word or not. If someone asked him where he was a half hour ago we cannot necessarily believe his answer because the truth doesn't matter to him at all.
To Trump, because he is the highest level of narcissist, the truth is the last thing he said.
We can't have that shit in the oval office.
I think it's you who aren't putting things in perspective. You leave Clinton, and by extension the entire government, free to disregard the FOIA laws, Congress, security guidelines and anything else they care to blow off as long as they aren't guilty of espionage. You'll live to regret setting a precedent like this if Trump becomes president.
Trump will do what he wants regardless. That is one of the reasons we can't make him president.
There is ZERO doubt in my mind that the Clinton e-mails is blown out of proportion , just like Benghazi was , by people who hate Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Trump will do what he wants regardless. That is one of the reasons we can't make him president.
Hoping for the best is fine but plan for the worst. What will keep Trump in check is the rule of law. Undermining the rule of law will make him dictator.
Nice deflection, John. It's not espionage, it's mishandling of classified data. Also illegal.
The report does not, in any way, vindicate Clinton and it makes quite clear that she and Powell were not similarly situated. At the time Powell was Secretary of State, the department's email system only allowed communication among department staff and had no Internet access. Powell requested a private line in his office so he could use his private email account to communicate with people outside the department. It was not a secret because his internet access was done with the knowledge and assistance of the IT unit. Essentially, Powell was just trying to get the same access to the Internet that he had at home. Powell had two computers on his desk: one for intra-agency communication; the other for communication outside the department. Guidelines on the use of personal email was much less developed at that time.
My understanding is that Powell used a private e-mail account exclusively. He did not have a government account. So all of his work related e-mails went through a private account, which has since been deleted. Powell was relying on the same element that Clinton was, that his e-mails to others would be captured by the .gov system.
Powell says that he had a separate computer that was used to view classified material. the inference I take from that is that this was not done through e-mail, but by another process. Clinton of course has said that she did not transmit classified material through e-mails, she also used other processes for that.
None of the now classified e-mails Clinton sent or received was classified at the time. At the time there were NONE, now there are many. What does that tell you? If she was intentionally abusing the e-mail there would have been some that were classified at the time that were later uncovered.
She may have done something wrong in following rules, but this whole thing also has the stench of witch hunt on it.
My understanding is that Powell used a private e-mail account exclusively. He did not have a government account. So all of his work related e-mails went through a private account, which has since been deleted. Powell was relying on the same element that Clinton was, that his e-mails to others would be captured by the .gov system.
At that time, Powell couldn't get email access outside the department without using his private account and a private line. He did not use a secret server AT ALL and he didn't hide what he was doing. Clinton, however, purchased a secret server to conceal emails that she ran through a private account. By using a separate server and a non-government email, Clinton essentially evaded a records search. Why? Because her outbox and somebody else's inbox are two separate records. In order to conduct a search, government officials would need to know to whom the email was sent in order to search a particular inbox and they can't search the inbox of everybody everywhere.
Powell says that he had a separate computer that was used to view classified material. the inference I take from that is that this was not done through e-mail, but by another process. Clinton of course has said that she did not transmit classified material through e-mails, she also used other processes for that.
Yet at least 104 of her emails had classified information. That's excluding what may have been in the 30,000 emails she deleted. So much for the representation of a liar.
None of the now classified e-mails Clinton sent or received was classified at the time. At the time there were NONE, now there are many. What does that tell you? If she was intentionally abusing the e-mail there would have been some that were classified at the time that were later uncovered.
As many have noted, some information is born classified. If she's too stupid to know when a document contains classified information unless somebody writes classified on it, then she's certainly too stupid to be president.
She may have done something wrong in following rules, but this whole thing also has the stench of witch hunt on it.
Or put another way . . . she has the stench of a witch.
As many have noted, some information is born classified. If she's too stupid to know when a document contains classified information unless somebody writes classified on it, then she's certainly too stupid to be president.
Many if not almost all of the "classified" emails in Clinton's system originated with someone else. If it was so obvious they should have been classified, why weren't they? From so many different people.
Your argument doesn't make sense, although I do realize that you are far from the only one making it.
As many have noted, some information is born classified. If she's too stupid to know when a document contains classified information unless somebody writes classified on it, then she's certainly too stupid to be president.
Many if not almost all of the "classified" emails in Clinton's system originated with someone else. If it was so obvious they should have been classified, why weren't they? From so many different people.
Your argument doesn't make sense, although I do realize that you are far from the only one making it.
Nope, she can't slither out that way. By using a private email account on a private server, she increased her own obligation as the head of the State Department to ensure that she identified and protected highly sensitive information. She is not less culpable by saying that she wouldn't have neglected her responsibility on her end if somebody else had picked up the slack on theirs. The scandal is her reckless use of a private server to house sensitive information simply to avoid public disclosure of the emails she wants to conceal.
If many other professionals in the state dept. did not believe the information was "classified" why, necessarily would she? You are completely ignoring the acknowledged problem of over classification.
At this point the best she can do is try to ride it out and hope the issue doesn't matter as much to a majority of Americans as it does to people who hate her. I don't think she will be successful changing many people's minds given the confluence of media forces against her. Talking heads that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag are piling on in order to try and make themselves look on top of something , and Clinton will have to ignore that rather than try to appeal to people to have a bit of reasonable perspective.
If many other professionals in the state dept. did not believe the information was "classified" why, necessarily would she? You are completely ignoring the acknowledged problem of over classification.
Gee, I guess that's why the Secretary of State shouldn't use a private email account or a secret server. If she's going to use devices outside the government's security network, then she can't be so irresponsible as to say "oh well, this is probably over classified anyway or who gives a shit whether it's classified or not . . . after all, it's not like I hold one of the most sensitive positions in the federal government."
Hilary Clinton has been in the Government long enough to know what should and shouldn't be done or who to contact to find out what the protocol is. In my Agency we are required to be certified in a number of areas including Official Records. With that said, she didn't break any laws. What she's guilty of is not following policy and procedures of the Agency. This is another lame issue that our elected officials have wasted our hard earned tax dollars on. This shite has got to stop. They cannot continue to piddle away our money on these partisan issues. It's not only taking away sorely needed money towards our debts and the needs of our country but it has pitted American against American. This issue is so trivial it's laughable.
Bottom line: She's guilty for not following Agency policy and procedures. So what......shrug
Alright John, dig up the longtime Clinton shill and post his painfully obvious propaganda to speak to the 30% of Americans who swallow whatever they are told by the Democrats.
Only an idiot, and that's being harsh to idiots, could possibly describe a report that irrefutably demonstrates and catalogs her breaking the law and being caught telling numerous lies about it can describe the report as a "vindication." It's like a murderer describing a guilty verdict as a vindication.
This proves, yet again, there is no lie to outlandish or implausible for the Clintons to spin to their gullible followers. This sort of blatantly dishonest propaganda is exactly the reason Clinton is considered a liar by the vast majority of Americans.
I didn't know writers for Forbes were Democratic propagandists.
didn't know writers for Forbes were Democratic propagandists.
You didn't link to a Forbes editorial,you linked to an opinion piece by a pundit on the Forbes website. Forbes contains numerous opinion pieces from all over the ideological spectrum.
This is an editorial from a avidly pro- Clinton Newspaper:
Caught!
Atomic wedgie.
Elsewhere in the photo Trump's wig fell off and a poodle is pissing on it.
Hillary is just having a normal human reaction to the sight.
She violated federal law and she should be barred from holding any clearance in the future. Period.
Looks like Hillary has been lying and engaged in unethical behavior longer than I thought.
Looks like Hillary has been lying and engaged in unethical behavior longer than I thought.
hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/
And stories like this one are why the country can't have nice things.
Claim: Hillary Clinton was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.
False
Most folk don't follow politics that closely so 30 or 40 years worth of these kind of bogus stories stick around as background noise making them think, " Hum, well where there's smoke there must be fire " and the fact that a certain segment of one party can be seen operating the smoke machines never seems to cut through the muck raking.
Claim: Hillary Clinton was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.
The part in dispute is whether she was fired not that Zeifman thought she was a liar and unethical. As far as I know, his opinion of her still stands.
The part in dispute is whether Hillary was fired for her conduct. As far as I'm aware, his opinion of her as a liar still stands.
So even Snopes admits she authored a brief that ignored controlling precedent in an attempt to keep Nixon from using a lawyer. Not citing controlling precedent when arguing a case is a violation of legal ethics.
Again, as so often with Clinton, she's either incredibly dishonest or incredibly incompetent. Those are the choices she leaves you with.
So even Snopes admits she authored a brief that ignored controlling precedent in an attempt to keep Nixon from using a lawyer. Not citing controlling precedent when arguing a case is a violation of legal ethics.
What am I overlooking Sean?
Snopes does NOTE the brief, as one of Zeifman's claims, but rather than ADMITTING it as some sort of truth the site goes on to debunk that whole point. At least that was my reading of it.
A passage from Dan Calabrese's 2008 article presents one of Zeifman's chief complaints about Hillary, that she supposedly "dishonestly" drafted a brief that argued President Nixon's counsel should not be allowed to participate in the Judiciary Committee's evidentiary hearings, even though a precedent from a few years earlier had seemingly established that a federal official facing impeachment should be allowed such representation:
"[Hillary] was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."
..............
This passage leaves many readers with the belief that Hillary Rodham took it upon herself to decide that President Nixon should not be represented by counsel during evidentiary hearings, to deliberately draft a brief that ignored precedent in that area, and to personally hide evidence of the precedent she had ignored so that no one could discover her dishonesty. But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by her supervisor (and Zeifman's).
Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)
So, once again, this particular story does not show Mrs Clinton as either dishonest or incompetent. Just the opposite in fact, once one drills down a bit.
This passage leaves many readers with the belief that Hillary Rodham took it upon herself to decide that President Nixon should not be represented by counsel during evidentiary hearings, to deliberately draft a brief that ignored precedent in that area, and to personally hide evidence of the precedent she had ignored so that no one could discover her dishonesty. But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by her supervisor (and Zeifman's).
Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present
Well let's drill down a bit further. The Snoops article attempts to rebut Zeifman's statements by subtly mismatching the facts. First of all, there are only two people that know what happened: Zeifman and Hillary. Zeifman said Hillary left the precedent out after he told her she should include it. The article does not rely on any contrary description of the incident from Hillary. Instead, it begins by saying Zeifman's statement could give the impression that Hillary took it upon herself to decide whether Nixon could have counsel and then rebuts that impression by noting that Zeifman himself said that the decision came from the top. The fact that the decision regarding counsel ultimately came from the top does not rebut Zeifman's allegation that he told her to include the precedent and she ignored him. These are not mutually exclusive circumstances because both can be true. The article implies that, because the ultimate decision on Nixon's counsel came from the top, then Hillary was merely following directions if she left the precedent out. Not necessarily. Hillary's supervisors could have been unaware that she left the precedent out, especially if they made a decision without being advised of existing precedent or maybe she left the precedent out thinking that she was saying what she believed her supervisors wanted to hear.
So let's recap what little this article says. It says "nearly" everything in the passage is wrong without conceding what, if anything, is right. The author completely sidesteps the question of whether Hillary left the precedent out or not. Although the author sidesteps a direct answer on the core question, he seems to assume that the precedent was left out but concludes, with absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever, that leaving precedent out is ethical and that Hillary did nothing wrong if some mystery person told her to do it.
To me, Zeifman's basic statement is unrebutted by any evidence in this article. The purpose of legal briefs and memos is to advise the decision maker of applicable law and precedent. Deliberately leaving out either law or precedent can skew the decision (or advice) one way or the other and is completely unethical. It can get an attorney fired whether Hillary was fired in this case or not. I bet no one at the "top" with a bar license (and who wants to keep it) ever admitted that they had anything to do with this.