2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumForbes: State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
May 25, 2016 @ 01:34 PM 5,407 views
State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#597d62512c7d
Charles Tiefer ,
Contributor
I cover government contracting, the Pentagon and Congress.
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. Powells 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.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You cannot (honestly, anyway) simultaneously argue the two following points:
(1) The State IG vindicates Clinton because it adds no new charges or evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
(2) The State IG was told by the FBI to stay away from classified info, and therefore did stay away from these topics
The column frankly is self-contradictory, though very amusing.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What are the old charges?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)or adverse facts."
Perhaps you could ask him?
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Not only is she guilty but the cover-up story is starting to crumble. She refuses to talk to anybody and her aides are getting immunity in exchange for their testimony.
Nope, nothing to see here...these are not the droids you're looking for....
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)"she is having a double standard applied to her"
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Professor Charles Tiefer has been defending her in the pages of Forbes on the FBI investigation, the FOIA lawsuits and now the State Dept. report since the beginning. I'm really not surprised considering his ties to the Democratic Party.
Professor Tiefer was chief litigator for the House of Representatives and was a courtroom advocate in numerous major cases. He served in 1996 as deputy minority counsel of the U.S. House Bosniagate investigating sub-committee and in 1987 as the Special Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Iran-Contra Committee. Professor Tiefer has had extensive immersion in investigative processes on diverse issues, including oversight investigations of foreign affairs and government contracting. He was appointed to his current role by Senator Harry Reid.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/operation-fast-and-furious-hearing-to-be-held-june-13th/
She will of course have people advocating for her in the media. This is to be expected. Bill Clinton likewise had lawyers and others advocating for him in the media during the Lewinsky non-stop media coverage.
TwilightZone
(25,473 posts)pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I was just pointing out what is pretty obvious. I just saw on CBS where Fallon was spinning this way too.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)TwilightZone
(25,473 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Therefore that would be the default position. Now why that law is currently toothless, it doesn't vindicate her (obviously). Only the FBI will determine if she is vindicated from any serious charge.
TwilightZone
(25,473 posts)If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you should probably just not post so that you don't look silly.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)You devotees are quite interesting.
TwilightZone
(25,473 posts)If the clearly right-wing Forbes can't even spin this as bad for Hillary....
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)by a Democratic ally. It wasn't Forbes opinion, as you know.
TwilightZone
(25,473 posts)Oh, the horror!! I mean, Democrats? Shit, we don't want to source anything that might have anything to do with Democrats. That would be...undemocratic or something. Fuckin' Democrats.
We better rush right back over to Fox News, the Blaze, the Daily Caller, the National Review, and the Washington Free Beacon to get our spin, since all of those are now legitimate sources on DU per the community and have all provided fodder for this story in just the past few days.
This place just keeps getting funnier.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I know this is a tough day for you. I know because I went through something very similar with Bill Clinton. I thought it was Bill's enemies who were lying about Lewinsky when in reality it was Bill who was lying. I too defended the spin coming from the Clinton WH. When we finally found out the truth I was devastated and felt really stupid. I still continued to defend him after that because of Ken Starr and the rest of the Republicans who I saw on my TV screen night after night. I still despise those Republicans but I stopped defending the Clinton spin. I just won't do that anymore.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)who have the nerve to point out actual, you know, facts. We shouldn't listen to them because they're Democrats!
What the hell happened to Democratic Underground? Washington Times, Breitbart, Fox News,etc: okay. Anyone who's a Democrat: not okay. Yeah, right.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Where was that posted?
Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)Great response! Nuttier and nuttier every damn day!
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Opinion piece or not, it's Forbes, the most right-wing business magazine published.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)no it does not