FactCheck.org: IG Report on Clinton’s Emails (May 27, 2016)

[Babel_17]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

IG Report on Clinton’s Emails
The State Department inspector general contradicts several of Clinton's long-standing talking points.

By Eugene Kiely
Posted on May 27, 2016 | Updated on May 27, 2016

Summary

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that her decision to use a private email account and server for government business while secretary of state was “allowed” by the State Department. She has said “my predecessors did the same thing,” and insisted she “fully complied with every rule” in preserving her work emails.

We have taken issue with those claims, and now so does the State Department Office of Inspector General, which issued a report on May 26 that contradicts several of Clinton’s claims about her emails:

The IG report cited department policies dating to 2005 that require “normal day-to-day operations” to be conducted on government servers, contrary to Clinton’s claim that her server was allowed. It also said she “had an obligation” to discuss her email system with cybersecurity officials, but there’s “no evidence” that she sought or received their approval.
The IG report said Clinton should have turned over her emails before she left office — not 21 months after she left. “[S]he did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report said.
Clinton has said her emails “were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department” because she emailed department officials at their government accounts. The IG report said that is “not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record.”

[deathrind]

1. I will give her credit.

At least in the quote HRC distinguished the difference between email v system. Most of the framing about this from her campaign makes it sounds as if the issue is about her simply using email which is disingenuous and clearly not the case at all.

[senz]

2. Brings back memories of 1990s denials preceding contradictory evidence

like lost Rose Law Firm records suddenly showing up at the WH.

I gave her a pass because I thought she was a Democrat under attack by the VRWC.

But it's not a one off; it's a pattern. It's a modus operandi. And it doesn't make rational sense. Something's just not right.

[Yurovsky]

3. She's always been greedy and willing to cut legal corners...

the age of technology may have rendered her skill set vulnerable to actually getting caught. She grew lazy and allowed others to do too much for her, and tolerated no dissent from her underlings. That is how a powerful person gets his/her comeuppance.

[senz]

4. I wish someone would publish an analysis.

There is so much wrong, so much, and it could be a disaster if it's allowed to go on much longer.

[Babel_17]

5. Now the Associated Press does its fact check

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280203434

[EndElectoral]

6. Hubris