State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

Quote:

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

Linky

Can she go to jail now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless you can go to jail for not following "policies," I would say there is no jail in her future.

The issue is they have yet to unequivocally prove that she illegally shared classified info (in the way that Snowden did, for example).

I know. I was just kidding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

There was some discussion on low level concern over her server, but they also confirmed it wasn't prohibited.

Generally speaking the report found the State Department has had lax rules for quite some time, but most of the big issues were fixed after Clinton left office.

The report prepared by the Obama administration, proves you're a liar Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton and her team ignored clear guidance from the State Department that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers, an independent audit has found. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff “the matter was not to be discussed further.”

"The inspector general’s review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation."

http://www.boston.com/culture/politi...clinton-emails

“By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” the report concluded. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”

http://www.boston.com/culture/politi...clinton-emails

I'll highlight it again in case it was missed or glossed over:


Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.

No it doesn't. It doesn't really conflict any of Clinton's statements on the matter either. The report really shows the State department had standards that we're keeping pace for decades.

A few minutes, must have been quite an attack.

Why did she have the server at her house in the first place? Seems to me it was only to have the ability to destroy evidence if need be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever.

Or if you did you would just delete 30,000 of them . You're a piece of work Jeff .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

exactly..

Your right, it wasn't much of an attack......considering the only defense they had was shutting down the server for a few minutes.

I bet that showed them..... :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

...and there's another check mark in the "To Stupid" column

Maybe you shouldn't be in her corner.....with your defense she's starting to look like a regular Barney Fife
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She has no legal or ethical obligation to submit personal emails to the public record.

As a propeller head you know any server will come under attack from time to time. Just people fishing...

Story hasn't really changed over the past year though. Shouldn't have done it, she admits this, no harm we're aware of, no malicious motive and a lot has shown to be overblown inter-agency infighting.

Ugh.... :wall:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So I'm wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep.

If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever on a server out of your control FIFY




well - at least when they started it back up and fully installed the RAT



Yes, but us propeller heads know that a lot of times you only know you are compromised is by inspecting the traffic that leaves your perimeter - not something this server or operation was capable of doing. Us propeller heads also know that the DptState systems are far more secure than an unpatched single exchange box in a bathroom. I can think of several ways to access that system. She created a monumental security blunder.

Unfortunately people are missing the point. SHE BROKE FEDERAL LAW. Why all the confusion, everyone knows if you cant trust someone with the small stuff, you can't trust them with the big stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Clueless" would be the more appropriate word....

...or "In Denial"....I'll let you choose

Exactly, and at a minimum ,you will see the information that the FBI has, which in an honest administration would bring an indictment , released before the national Democratic convention .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence will now say that breaking federal law is acceptable because people have done it before Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fixed it:laugha:

The report doesn't say she broke federal law, it says that the working assumption -- that copying a state.gov address on emails -- wasn't sufficient to satisfy State Department procedure to comply with the National Records Act. They wanted the emails to be printed instead.

Further the report states that both the NARA and OIG agreed "Clinton's production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records on her departure."

So what the report says is that they would have liked them to be printed when she left, but her follow on action was good enough.

You can read the report here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/...039/?tid=a_inl

The report states that she acted without permission, did not ask to have her own server, and if she did, they would have said no.