Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law, protocol and security during her tenure, according to an Inspector General report sent to Congress.
She showed reckless disregard for the laws involving record keeping and national security.
And those who raised concerns in her office were told everything had been approved — a lie — and to shut up and never bring it up again.
Here is an example from the report:
Two staff in S/ES-IRM (S/ES Office of Information Resources Management) reported to OIG (Office of Inspector General) that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.
When asked about whether the email system met security requires, there came another lie:
Similarly, the FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) contained provisions requiring employees who process SBU (sensitive but unclassified) information on their own devices to ensure that appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are maintained to protect the confidentiality and integrity of records and to ensure encryption of SBU information with products certified by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). With regard to encryption, Secretary Clinton’s website states that “robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.” … Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements …
It was clear Clinton did not want certain email to be accessible by the public, even though it was being commingled with what were clearly public records. According to the IG, Clinton wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
The Hill recalled, “In addition to the roughly 30,000 emails she returned to the federal government for record-keeping, Clinton also claimed to have deleted a similar number of emails from her machine, which she claimed were purely personal in nature.”
Guidelines for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act clearly state that personal information is not to be commingled with public records.
The IG concluded:
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.
This, of course, prompted the excuse: Others did it, too.
According to Politico, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said “in reality, the Inspector General documents just how (sic) consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email.”
All are guilty so all are innocent.
Clinton and her top staffers refused to be interviewed for the investigation. A footnote states: “Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview. The former Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations has not responded to OIG’s request for an interview.”