Clinton email server broke government rules, watchdog finds

How could future madam president have been wrong? She told us she did nothing wrong. She told us she did nothing more than others preceeding her had done. She told us no "marked" classified emails sent or received. She also tried to scrub the server, as she demonstrated in an interview imitating the wax-on, wax-off routine.

Well, the truth is she did violate protocol. Others precededing her did use personal devices ON OCCASION, she used her non dot.gov account EXCLUSIVELY. Maybe the "marked" classified is true, but she did send/receive classified emails.

Hillary, you are a liar! You shamed the DNC in this election cycle! Your ongoing investigation may even have you indicted. And you deserve that for the poor judgement you practice.

" broken rules" were actually "felonies committed" by Clinton.

Well, clearly, that isn't true, or Clinton would be facing charges as we speak. It amuses me to no end how anti-Clinton -- and I can't really say anti-Democrat here. This is a entirely different beast. A neurosis, almost.

It amuses me to no end how anti-Clinton folks so easily and readily take to seizing upon some law or other and twisting it to fit their own personal, neurotic narrative. Couldn't get her on Whitewater. Couldn't get her on Benghazi. So now conservatives are pinning their infantile hopes on an email server...

Sad and pathetic don't even begin to describe the current cancer eating up the GOP from the inside.

I don't particularly care whether Hillary broke any laws or not but even Obama admitted that she was "careless with national security." Do we want that in a president ? I don't think so. Not to mention deleting emails, lying and stonewalling the FBI when she didn't believe that she had ever told a lie and was the self proclaimed most "transparent" public official in living memory. If the Sec. of State was "careless" in this case, intentionally or not, then it follows that national security was/is in jeopardy.

Was her email hacked? Don't think so. Did she kill someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue? No. Is Donald Trump a much bigger liar than Clinton? Yup. (Check any fact checker for proof) I'm with Her.

Hellary who can't do no wrong ....did!

No Presidency for her then........!

@LFRAgain and also JoeinTokyo

First if all I am anti-both political parties so I am not looking at this from a partisan perspective. Also I do not know or claim to know she is guilty or innocent of anything. Also I am not looking at this from an "anti-Clinton" perspective either.

LFRAgain - What you say is not necessarily true. If charges are to be pressed the investigation is a precursor to pressing charges and I am sure the investigators and prosecution (if it does get that far) would want to make sure they have a very solid case as this would be one big deal if this goes through. The fact that immunity has been given to several people should have people worried. How this turns out I have no idea.

I had a SCI clearance several years ago. I read the paperwork I signed upon receiving the clearance and upon completion of my duties. Some of the things she has actually admitted to have done would violate the terms of what I signed. Also being the Secretary of State of the U.S. she should actually know better.

Finally the excerpt below was included in a report from the State Department’s inspector general (remember this is President Obama's State Department - not some so called right wing conspiracy). This excerpt is extremely damaging to Clinton as it shows even Huma Abedin (her closest adviser) was trying to get Hillary to use the official state department email. It appears that she was more concerned about someone having access to her personal mail than having the ability to do the work for which the American taxpayers are paying her. (I do not want people to access my personal e-mail either but I do not let that get in the way of doing my job).

“In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received,” the report said. “The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-personal-email-worry-223559#ixzz49iJ9RV5j Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook**

Whichever side of the fence one is on "Pro-Clinton", "Anti-Clinton" or like me "neither of the two" this does not look very good and does not instill confidence in me that she is fit to be President. Unfortunately the other alternative is not good either.

It is a shame and embarrassing that the U.S. cannot do better than Clinton or Trump as the major party presidential nominees.

I don't particularly care whether Hillary broke any laws or not but even Obama admitted that she was "careless with national security."

No he didn't.

@Strangerland - Yes President Obama actually did. Here is the article from CBS news (not Fox or some other right wing outlet)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-hillary-clinton-showed-carelessness-in-managing-emails/

Joeintokyo, MarkG, Lizz,

When you and the rest of the GOP drag Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell up in front of a subcommittee and press the FBI to charge them as well, then you have a legitimate and fair voice in the saga of the email server. But until then, your partisan anti-Clinto knickers showing makes it all too clear this isn't about what's right or fair or just. It's about getting Clinton. Since none of your other hairbrained attempts have worked, you're all clinging to the email issue almost as if it were the last Snickers bar on a life raft adrift at sea.

You want fair? You want justice? You want to send a message to future Secretaries of State that the GOP takes national security seriously? Then press to indict Rice, Kerry, Albright, and Powell too.

Otherwise, shut your yaps.

Thank you, that article just proves my point. He did not say she was "careless with national security".

@Strangerland. You may be right/you may not...If you read the article and read what he said it has yet to be proven right or wrong (and it may never happen). Also President Obama goes on to say. "What I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are -- there's classified, and then there's classified,". Obviously the President does handle a lot of classified information but ask anyone who has held a "Secret" clearance or above (I had SCI) that quote does not hold water. I am not saying at all the President is careless with information however the words he chose are poor at best. I am still in the middle on this issue and would like 2 things - it to be fully vetted and it to end.

@LFRAgain - your point is well taken - I think you need to go a bit higher though and go Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. However I have a question for you: I see your message was not directed at me but it does beg the question - What about people like me that think they all should be investigated (regardless of political party)? Should I "shut my yaps" as well? Also should we just accept mediocre governance and choose the worst of two evils?

I think partisanship has done such a great disservice to the United States and is dragging the country further down into the doldrums. I still hold the position that neither party has put up a good choice for President.

The fact that immunity has been given to several people should have people worried.

I believe Former Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano is the only key witness we know who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department. Although self confessed hacker Guccifer just reached a plea deal with prosecutors most likely in exchange for assistance in the ongoing investigation. He isn't in this country by coincidence.

@Strangerland. You may be right/you may not

In this case, I'm right. Read the article, nowhere does it say the quote that Lizz claimed. And to be exact on what it said:

what I've also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there's a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.

The carelessness he mentioned was in the managing of her emails, he did not say the carelessness was not in regards to national security. What he actually said in regards to national security was:

I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America's national security

As I said, the article proved that I was correct that he did not say what Lizz incorrectly quoted him as saying.

Correction:

he did not say the carelessness was in regards to national security.

President Nixon "lost" 15 minutes of tape and was impeached. Hillary DELETED 33,000+ emails that SHE decided were not pertinent. This is MUCH worse.

The report also contradicts her argument that her exclusive use of a private email server while running the State Department was permitted. And she is the only one who went so far as to set up a private server.

What Rice and Powell did is not germane. The inspector general noted that internal rules about email and cybersecurity had grown “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated” by the time Hillary came into office. And as Secretary of State, part of her job was to fix things in the department that were broken not expand upon them.

Why would anyone think she can fix the country? Not a resume builder for POTUS.

@Strangerland - If this is a matter of semantics you are in fact right

@LFR....Kerry, Rice, Albright and Powell did use the .gov email service. Hillary did not.

In elementary English, Hillary ONLY used her private server. Not the government servers. Kerry, Rice and Albright did not. Huge difference.

The inspector general had better hire a food taster.

If the emails contained information on national security which they obviously did than I don't care what Obama testifies to, carelessness with sensitive national security materials is tantamount to carelessness with national security.

"The inspector general’s report cited “longstanding, systemic weaknesses” with State Department records that predated Clinton’s tenure, and found problems with the email record-keeping of some of her predecessors, particularly Powell, that failed to comply with the Federal Records Act." - article

End of. State Department records had problems. OK, so three administrations had problems. Job done. Next!

If the emails contained information on national security which they obviously did than I don't care what Obama testifies to

Obviously you don't care, as you quoted him on something he never said. Very irresponsible.

carelessness with sensitive national security materials is tantamount to carelessness with national security - comments

And so a lecture begins on Edward Joseph Snowden.

Nice work, thanks for that. Very helpful. The suggestion box is at the front office.

@kcjapan - You are right - I fully agree that these problems are not limited to the current administration nor are they limited to Ms. Clinton. As a non partisan in all of this I think irresponsible behavior perpetrated by either party should be investigated and corrective action taken. Unfortunately our governance has devolved into a 2 party false left-right paradigm and I think things will continue to get worse.

I remember what I signed and I believe that Mr. Powell and Ms. Clinton would both be in violation. Unfortunately the U.S. has become a place where rules apply to the 99% and they are not applicable to the 1% (this transcends economics into political power).

I think it sucks whichever side of the fence you see it from (or if you see it from sitting on the fence for that matter).

We should all be thanking the hacker Guccifer for releasing the Hillary secret email server files and for those humorous George Bush (Senior) photos and artwork. So why is Guccifer being detained by US Gov and Hillary is allowed to campaign for President?

The inspector general’s report cited “longstanding, systemic weaknesses” with State Department records that predated Clinton’s tenure, and found problems with the email record-keeping of some of her predecessors, particularly Powell, that failed to comply with the Federal Records Act.

As our Republican friends like to say, "both sides do it."

And that should end the debate.

Well, clearly, that isn't true, or Clinton would be facing charges as we speak. It amuses me to no end how anti-Clinton -- and I can't really say anti-Democrat here. This is a entirely different beast. A neurosis, almost.

This is why I feel liberals will put me in a mental hospital! Liberals will NEVER concede or admit that their candidate or even their president is flawed. Well now we have the truth etched in stone that NOT only are liberals the biggest liars and hypocrites, but they're also getting help from the DOJ! This is just outrageous and further testimony as to why the people don't trust the government, the justice system, political system and this admin. I'm just totally befuddled.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/05/fed-judge-blasts-doj-lawyers-lying-court-defend-obama-amnesty/

"both sides do it."

Not like the Dems.

And that should end the debate.

@SuperLib - I fully agree both sides do it. I do not however think this should end the debate. My perspective is that what it should do is result in both sides being investigated (those that are perpetrators), the root cause of the problem being identified, and finally a resolution being provided to ensure these things do not happen again. Maybe to make everyone happen an investigation of Ms. Clinton and Mr. Powell should occur concurrently.

Unfortunately I am not confident this will ever happen. It is why the U.S. political system is devolving so rapidly into and beyond mediocrity.

Tokyo-Engr,

Also should we just accept mediocre governance and choose the worst of two evils?

Absolutely not. But we should also be savvy enough to recognize when the legitimate public interest is being served by an investigation that costs taxpayers millions of dollars and when the interest being served is more private, partisan, and vindictive in nature. By waving the rule book squarely in the face of Clinton and ignoring at least five other Secretaries of State who committed the exact same indiscretions, the investigation is suspect and corrupted from the onset.

Colin Powell took immediate umbrage at State Department suggestions that he mishandled materials that should have been classified, and it looked like there may have been a glimmer of a fair investigation unfolding. But his justifiable anger was displelled almost immediately. Why? Because it was made very clear to him and other Secretaries that they were no the target of the {ahem} "investigation."

Clinton handled her emails in a manner that was not authorized by the State Depatment's technology and security specialist. But so did virtually every Secretary of State before her, and, as you point out, a vice president and defense secretary. Where is the outrage for their transgressions? Where is the cry for thieir prosecution? Not coming any time soon, I can guarantee you.

Should we accept mediocre governance and choose the worst of two evils? To what mediocrity are you specifically referring to? And which ever would you deem to be the worst? Respectfully, you are allowing yourself to be clouded by a bias that while certainly more liberal in your similar disdain for both the Democratic and Republican contenters, is still not able to see the naked, shameless hypocrisy being bandied about by the GOP leadership regarding the emails.

I'll take mediocre over paetisan hypocrisy any day of the week. Mediocrity means things may not get done as efficiently as they could be. By naked, shameless hypocrisy from political leadership is more destructive and debilitating to the Body Politic than an army of average politicians could ever be.

@LFRAgain - Thank you for your well thought out response. However I have to disagree on two points.

I do in fact see the hypocrisy of this and dare I say I am savvy enough to recognize what is going on. What I do not like is that having held very high level security clearances is the hypocrisy in the fact that if I had done what either of these people did (Clinton or Powell) I would be likely have spent some time in the custody of the Federal Government. The real and disgusting hypocrisy of all this is that there are clearly rules for the governing class and the lowly citizen. I do not see any way that Ms. Clinton will be found guilty (or even formally prosecuted for this). I think we all should be more upset at this than anything else.

I do not think mediocrity in government should be accepted - nor should it be accepted in academics, professional practice, etc. However if it is accepted among our "leaders" then how can the citizenry be expected to be any different.

A few other points

When referring to Rumsfeld or Cheney: they were never accused of this (and perhaps they never did such a thing - I do not know) however what they did was far worse than mishandling of classified information.

If, in fact, an investigation into government corruption, mishandling of information, etc. occurs it is well worth the millions of dollars spent. If it starts with Ms. Clinton and continues to Mr. Powell, etc.

Having "served" my country in different capacities and having sworn to uphold the Constitution and also protect classified information I am sad to say that I have in fact developed a bias against government, both political parties.

I am more saddened by this than angered as white I see, in spite of the bickering and campaign rhetoric. are 2 political parties that are much more alike than people realize and a government that is more interested in self preservation and furthering their own interests rather than serving the citizens.

Poor Rick Perry - he's been angling for Trump's VP slot like a hooker at a Vegas banker convention, but turns out he'd conducted much state business while Texas gov via private email. Trump is so obtuse he'll probably choose him anyway.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/04/perry-faces-transparency-questions-after-clinton-r/

As with her husband, Hillary should've come forward earlier and been more forthcoming. Also, as with her husband, not doing so earlier smells of a cover-up, and that's part of her problem and one of the reasons why lots of people have trouble trusting her.

The State Department report: Hillary Clinton broke her own Department's rules, but there's no law broken (it's internal Department policy, not law).

It's not a legal problem, but it is a political problem.

The separate FBI investigation would be the one that involves legality.

The current Benghazi committee rings up about $8,000 per day in costs, totaling so far $6.8 million. The focus on the emails is tacit admission that the Benghazi kerfuffle is going nowhere, and this leaves Republicans with only one rack to hang their hopes on. The above comment about the Watergate tapes was asinine: Nixon spied on political opponents, broke the law, and lied about it. Clinton used a home server - bad idea, but not far out of line from other politicians of her day.

Kerfuffle. Someday (say, post-November, when Hillary has been elected), we'll all look back on this and laugh.

Toss the hag into maximum security at Leavenworth already.

President Nixon "lost" 15 minutes of tape and was impeached.

@kabukideath The impeachment proceedings against Nixon were not specifically about erasing tapes. They were, among other things, about a cover up of the Watergate break-in. (There were also attempts at impeachment for tax evasion and illegal bombing of Cambodia.) He was never impeached. He resigned before things reached that stage and was later pardoned.

@Tokyo-Engr Thanks for the posts. It's nice to read some non-partisan comments on this.

The current Benghazi committee rings up about $8,000 per day in costs, totaling so far $6.8 million. The focus on the emails is tacit admission that the Benghazi kerfuffle is going nowhere, and this leaves Republicans with only one rack to hang their hopes on. The above comment about the Watergate tapes was asinine: Nixon spied on political opponents, broke the law, and lied about it. Clinton used a home server - bad idea, but not far out of line from other politicians of her day.

Kerfuffle. Someday (say, post-November, when Hillary has been elected), we'll all look back on this and laugh.

Yeah, I m going to say it again, if the DOJ itself is being investigated on the grounds of lies and staff needs to take an ethics course, you know we have reached the lowest point. Everyone knows Hillary is guilty, everyone except her loyal fan base which isn't all that much compared to Trump's now when it comes to likability, they're both in the dog house, but when it comes to honesty and integrity, Hillary doesn't even a close second.

Just in case ya'll missed it!

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/05/fed-judge-blasts-doj-lawyers-lying-court-defend-obama-amnesty/

Now it's clear why she's slipping the noose. But this is only going to make Trump stronger and finally can kick these liberal moon bats out of office for hopefully a very long time.

Good news!I hope,wish,look forward to,never to see Hilary in the oval office.i hope this is a beginning to an end,though i know very well big lobbies and cartels will back her to the end,but always remember"never say never"and "expect the unexpected".

She wasn't even able to beat Sanders in California even before this latest report. Hillary is up to her neck in it and there needs to be another nominee.

http://www.arcamax.com/currentnews/newsheadlines/s-1834549

**

@lostrune2

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. To me, Hillary committed a felony while concurrently breaking State Department rules. I'm sure there is a Venn diagram that could be drawn up to illustrate the point. But for our purposes, just imagine that any felony committed also breaks State Department rules.

The State Department report only reported the State Department rules that Hillary broke. Those State Department rules are just internal department policy - not codefied as law of the land. Thus, the State Department rules which Hillary broke are not illegal.

There's an ongoing separate FBI investigation that's different from the purpose of the State Department report. That FBI report is not finished yet; thus there's no felony committed as of yet. Your Venn diagram is currently missing that FBI felony circle - there's only that State Department circle.

The iG report wasn't part of a criminal investigation but it isn't difficult to connect the dots when the “policies,” she violated “were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

And again how is a former high government official who systematically evaded federal records requirements and then refused to cooperate with a government investigation into that evasion conceivably fit to be president of the United States?

Flash:

The review encompassed the email and information practices of the past five secretaries of state, finding them “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.”

This shows Clinton is a person with integrity. But even if Trump becomes president it means more Obama government healthcare. She is very very fit to be president. She will be both feared and respected.

This shows Clinton is a person with integrity.

People with integrity are never investigated by the FBI.

This shows Clinton is a person with integrity.

How? Are you saying two wrongs (or in this case six wrongs) make a right?

Colin Powell was the first Secretary of State to use email. Yes, the personal and work co-mingled to a certain extent on his gmail account but he was doing it to encourage the department and his staff to use electronic communications more. There were none of the regulations put in place under Clinton, it was completely aboveboard and everyone knew what he was doing.

Hillary, on the other hand, was warned extensively before hand of decades of this Records Act that prohibits you from leaving the State Department, from leaving any agency, and not turn over your records.Given the fact they have been making a completely different argument now for more than a year I don't see how this is anything but devastating.

You can inform the truth all month long and liberals will believe Hillary Lizz.

A Shepard can lead sheep today's Shepard is the MSM ovewhelmingly positioned left, the sheep follow.

Another note on Powell: he may have had a private address but not a private server set up in his home where the encryption could be set such that the State Department nor anyone other third party could see his correspondence. Because the one and only reason to go to the effort to do that is to hide illegalities. The tide is definitely beginning to turn on Clinton in the media and among her followers as more of these allegations are raised and systematically debunked.

Conservatives just hate the very competent Clinton. If they bust her then they need to bust Powell. But go ahead and vote for Trump (1) Warren Buffet says Clinton or Trump does matter (2) Trump will increase government healthcare "I like the mandate"

Hillary Clinton broke government rules by using a private email server without approval for her work as U.S. secretary of state, an internal government watchdog said on Wednesday.

It appears that Hillary Clinton was lying when she earlier swore that she had recieved official permission to use her private server for government business.

The report’s highly critical findings undermined her earlier defense of the arrangement.....

Yep, Hillary lied. Repeatedly. That can't help her gain the confidence of the voters.

Not only lies she has made a career of operating in secrecy in willful defiance of laws and of the rules that safeguard national security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-official-clinton-could-not-access-state-network-without-email-account/2016/05/26/0926c552-236c-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

State Dept. offered ‘standalone’ PC for Clinton’s email

State Department officials took pains to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary, according to newly released testimony by a career agency official.

Clinton was offered a “stand-alone” computer near her office that would let her access the Internet without entering a password or logging into the department’s network as other employees are required to do, the official said.

The official, Lewis A. Lukens, executive director of Clinton’s executive secretariat from 2008 to 2011, said he was told the proposal was declined because Clinton was “not adept or not used to checking her emails on a desktop.” However, Lukens said, Clinton was “very comfortable” using a BlackBerry — even though she would have to leave her office to use the device due to security protocols.

Lukens initially said he wanted to make it easier for Clinton to bypass the department’s computer network so she could log on with fewer passwords, before acknowledging that Clinton could not access the system without a department email account.