Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Hillary; knew when the Investigator General's Report came out that it would be devastating,
that's why she canceled the last debate with Bernie, in order to avoid national scrutiny over the obvious contradiction against a year's worth of blatant lies on the subject and to run out the clock.
If Hillary makes it to the general election, I don't know how she will avoid this issue against Trump, canceling those debates will be infinitely more difficult without just handing the election to him in November.
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just FYI 
This Editorial from a newspaper than endorsed her earlier in the race.
Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.
So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.
This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance.
(snip)
When Republicans first questioned the propriety of using her own home-based server over a year ago, Mrs. Clinton sought to finesse the matter as partisan flak. Under pressure, she eventually apologized for a “mistake,” while insisting she had done nothing wrong and would cooperate fully with investigators. But she did not honor that promise, according to the report, which noted that she declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, Steve Linick, or his staff.
When State Department staff members questioned her use of a nongovernmental email address in 2010, the report said, they were instructed by superiors “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.” The sharply critical report found that, contrary to her earlier insistence that the practice was “allowed,” Mrs. Clinton had not sought permission to use the server, and that permission would have been denied under the department’s evolving policy to better protect Internet communications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/opinion/hillary-clinton-drowning-in-email.html?_r=0
(snip)
Most crucially, the inspector general directly contradicts Clinton's repeated assertions that she complied both with federal law and State Department policies. "At a minimum," the report finds, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The report goes further, noting that while Clinton's subsequent production of 55,000 pages of emails in response to State Department demands partially corrected these violations, the records Clinton turned over were incomplete. Remarkably, the report includes reference to a previously unreleased 2010 email in which Clinton, responding to her deputy chief of staff for operations, Huma Abedin, directly addresses her lack of an official State Department email account and voices a fear of the "risk of the personal being accessible" if she had one. In a briefing, State Department officials were unable to confirm the source of this email, but if it was omitted from the records Clinton produced, it again would raise questions about the process she used to distinguish between "federal records" and "personal records" before destroying the latter.
The inspector general also reveals the comments of State Department records management staff in late 2010 expressly raising concerns that Clinton's private email server "could contain federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy federal record-keeping requirements." A senior official rebuffed these concerns, claiming that Clinton's email arrangement "had been approved by the department legal staff" -- an assertion the inspector general concluded was untrue -- and directed staff "never to speak of the secretary's personal email system again."
(snip)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/clinton-email-server-ig-report-opinion-cox/
That report contradicted a few lies she has been spouting for about a year now. 
