Hillary Clinton

Inspector General's Report Refutes All of Hillary Clinton's Defenses For Using Private Email Server

The Democratic frontrunner is painted as stubborn, self-isolated, and unaccountable in IG's report.

|

Hillary Clinton on the ropes?
Americanspirit/Dreamstime.com

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a year-long investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Clinton's three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Clinton, none used a private server and, though Powell and Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she "can't wait" to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general's report is damning to Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn't been publicly made known showing Clinton's state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Clinton's argument that her use of a private server "was allowed." The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department IT folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

In addition, the report rejects her argument — already debunked by the director of the FBI — that the FBI is merely conducting a security review of the State Department's email storage and usage policies rather than a criminal investigation of her. The FBI does not conduct security reviews. The inspector general does. This report is the result of that review, and Clinton flunked it, as it reveals that she refused to comply with the same State Department storage and transparency regulations she was enforcing against others.

Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act. She preferred to go dark, or back to the 19th-century technology of having documents read aloud to her.

This report continues the cascade of legal misery that has befallen her in the past eight months. The State Department she once headed has rejected all of her arguments. Two federal judges have ordered her aides to testify about a conspiracy in her office to evade federal laws. She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than grave.

We know that Clinton's own camp finally recognizes just how dangerous this email controversy has become for her. Over the Memorial Day weekend, John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton's campaign, sent an email to her most important donors. In it, he recognizes the need to arm the donors with talking points to address Clinton's rapidly deteriorating support with Democratic primary voters.

The Podesta email suggests attempting to minimize Clinton's use of her private server by comparing it to Powell's occasional use of his personal email account. This is a risky and faulty comparison. None of Powell's emails from his private account — only two or three dozen — contained matters that were confidential, secret or top-secret.

Clinton diverted all of her email traffic to her private server — some 66,000 emails, about 2,200 of which contained state secrets. Moreover, Powell never used his own server, nor is he presently seeking to become the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land.

The inspector general who wrote the report was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013, after Clinton left office. He did a commendable job — one so thorough and enlightening that it has highlighted the important role that inspectors general play in government today.

Today every department in the executive branch has, by law, an inspector general in place who has the authority to investigate the department — keeping officials' feet to the fire by exposing failure to comply with federal law.

If you are curious as to why the inspector general of the State Department during Clinton's years as secretary did not discover all of Clinton's lawbreaking while she was doing it, the answer will alarm but probably not surprise you.

There was no inspector general at the State Department during Clinton's tenure as secretary — a state of affairs unique in modern history; and she knew that. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO | DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: Hillary Clinton's IT Aide to Plead the Fifth in Open Records Lawsuit Over Private Email Server

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait – I thought Reason was “in the tank” for Hillary. So confused…..

    1. We know you’re confused, you prove it every day. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

    2. I think they are feelin the Bern.

  2. I am shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!

    1. Round up the usual suspects.

    1. Hillary’s supporters have known all along that she is lying, corrupt, incompetent, and criminal. They just don’t care.

      1. This.

        They think feel she is “fighting for them”, because that’s what she tells them.

        1. “Hillary: Fighting for Us!”

          What does that even mean, exactly? What do her idiot supporters think it actually means? The fact that large masses of people are so stupid as to be swayed by such inanities just astonishes me.

          1. “If you have to ask what ‘Fighting for Us’ is, you’ll never know.”

            Apologies to Satchmo.

          2. It means that the US has deteriorated to where the rule of law means little, and the President can use his power to punish his enemies and reward his friends.

            Obama has done it openly. Hillary has made it a campaign slogan, to go with Vote Vagina 2016!

        2. They think feel she is “fighting? lying for them”

  3. Another Reason writer makes another post with no new information and little if any new insight. I can hardly contain myself.

    “These decrees of yours are no different from spiders’ webs. They’ll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they’ll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth.” — Anacharsis, 6th century BC

    1. This is a syndicated column.

    2. Another Reason writer

      Yeah, Andrew Napolitano is just some measly Reason writer.

      Moron.

      1. Uh, yeah, Fox News “go to” guy. Former judge for a few years in the prior century. But he has been bellowing for her head for approximately forever and to no great effect. I think I have scandal fatigue.

        1. If you comfortable that Hillary is being genuine about the emails … More power to you. I love your idealism in the face of all evidence. You have found the only honest politician out there to be your champion! Best of luck to you and I have a bridge to sell you!

    3. Actually MOST of what is discussed in this article, which it appears you did not read, is very recent. Can Clinton wiggle her way out of this? I doubt it; even though she has managed to wiggle out of other messes of her own creation.

      1. Can she skate on this? Probably, but the bigger issue is that her family foundation took money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. I may be naive, but I have a hard time believing that even the Dems (except Secretary Kerry, of course\) would let that slide.

        1. Hitlery’s scandals cover at least three decades: Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster, Travelgate… right on up to Benghazi and the current espionage case.

          At some point, even most Demoncraps have to say, “She’s got too much baggage”.
          Most won’t.
          Most will blindly vote for a pile of dog shit if the pile of dog shit is the Demoncrap candidate.
          (Similar conclusions may be made of the Republitards.)

      2. I thought the bit about being no IG was enlightening. I’ve often wondered what – besides being Hitlery – made her think she could get away with this.
        Now I know.

  4. Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act. She preferred to go dark, or back to the 19th-century technology of having documents read aloud to her.

    “When that phone rings at 3am who do you want answering the phone when that telegram arrives via pony express who do you want to open it under candlelight?”

    1. *sigh* The 19th century is so romantic.
      /ignores cholera

    2. I know when that morse code bling it can only mean one thing.

      1. doo wop doo wop doo wop?

        1. It don’t mean a thing.

          1. Well, I ain’t got that swing 🙁

    3. “”When that phone rings at 3am check arrives from Saudi Arabia who do you want answering the phone cashing it?”

      1. That’s funny. I wish I had the skill and the drive to make that commercial.

  5. When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act convenience.

    FTFTJ

    1. I think the Judge’s statement was a little more damning. Didn’t really need fixing.

      1. Oh, very well. Because of “convenience”.

        1. Well Hillary is selling the “I just did it for my convenience, sorry about that” does sound better than “I did it so you fucking plebes couldn’t request my information”.

          1. When she christens millions more illegals as democratic voters, then she’ll tell the truth to rub our noses in our subjection.

            “Yeah, I did it so you fucking plebes couldn’t request my information. And you’ll never be able to do a damn thing about it!. Suck it, plebes!”

    2. Yes, having emails read aloud to you is SO convenient!! I’m surprised EVERYONE doesn’t do it!!

  6. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?

    Somebody doesn’t know the definition of “unaccountable”.

  7. Let the spinning begin!

    But seriously. This is outrageous. She is not fit to be President. If she acted like this as SoS imagine as President! Even people who wanted to vote for her have to rethink this; perhaps calculating for the good of the party or even country.

    1. They already have. By some strange calculus that applies only to elections, “Trump would be worse.”
      All the beauty of a counter-factual conditional without, you know, the conditional. Or the factual basis.
      The future can always be worse.
      The opponent can always be made out to be worse than however bad who/what you support demonstrably is.
      And it’s all about the opponent’s lack of merit, not “our hero’s” abundance of merit.

      1. Rand Paul is out of the race. Donald at least has a less belligerent foreign policy and healthy disdain for the media.

        1. Why not check out Gary Johnson? Excellent choice to lead our nation.

    2. She is not fit to be President.

      I’m so looking forward to Trump’s rant on this. Hopefully, he’ll do it to her face at a debate.

      “I’m not fit to be President? You delivered all our diplomatic secrets to our enemies on a silver platter. Russia. China. Iran. North Korea. They have more of your emails than we do! How can this woman be president, when all our enemies will be able to blackmail her with the emails that she never gave to us?
      You betrayed us to our enemies, and just so you could keep your communications beyond legal review and legally required record keeping. You’re the *last* person in the country we can afford to have as President. You’re a criminal, a traitor, and susceptible to blackmail from our enemies. This is beyond sad! Hillary as President would be a disaster. A nightmare.
      How can anyone vote for you? How can you even run? Have you no shame, decency, or common sense? “

  8. On another note, this all seems so damning. I know we joke that nothing will happen but can she finally face the consequences of actions?

    1. Look on the bright side, Rufus. She may cough up a lung during the debates and we won’t have to find out.

    2. can she finally face the consequences of actions?

      No, because the only people capable of holding her accountable have no interest in doing so.

    3. If and when charges are filed against her, Obama will most likely issue a pardon (think Ford pardoning Nixon), so she’ll likely never pay for her crimes. It might be enough to ensure she doesn’t get elected though.

      1. Wouldn’t a pardon doom her in the election?

    4. I know we joke that nothing will happen

      As for me, at least, i am not joking. I have resigned myself to the inevitable fact that this woman, this pathologically lying snake, this felon, not only will skate on this and who knows how many other crimes, but that she WILL be the next president. I can’t believe this state of affairs, but oh well. What can ya do?

  9. Justifiable homicide is the only crime where you can legitimately have a defense consisting of “yeah, I did it.”

    1. Also putting your dirty boots on Eddie Murphy couch.
      /Rick James

      1. “What am I gonna do, just go up in some niggas house and put my muddy feet all over his couch just cause it’s some thing to do?…………Yeah, I put my muddy feet all over Eddie Murphy’s couch just cause it was some thing to do.”

        *rewind* *replay*

        “…Cocaine’s a hell of a drug.”

  10. You know who else was stubborn, self-isolated, and unaccountable…

    1. Paul Krugman?

    2. The Batman?

    3. The Man in the Iron Mask?

    4. The King of Pointland.

    5. Superman?

    6. Howard Hughes?

  11. I know I’m being stubbornly na?ve here, but I still believe she’s going down over this. Not as far down as some pathetic underling, of course, but there’s no way they can let this go. She absolutely cannot be President. Even if she’s elected she will only have succeeded in destroying any shred of legitimacy to the Presidency. She’ll have no accountability over the military she’s supposed to be in charge of. They all know exactly what would have happened to them in a similar situation. Operations might continue but you can be damn sure effectiveness will be non-existent because of the sentiment this sort of thing would create. She’s already the butt of every information security joke.

    I don’t think she’ll be elected because of this, possibly not even given the chance. It’s too big. The consequences are too far reaching to ignore (except by the most brainwashed morons out there).

    1. I hope you’re right. Also, optimistic people live longer I hear, so don’t change.

      1. I don’t think I want to live that long.

    2. Yep. When this private server business first surfaced I predicted her downfall. Because of her corruption and paranoia she terminally fucked up.

    3. I don’t think she’ll be indicted. I don’t think anyone wants to be seen as “affecting the election” (despite the fact that NOT indicting someone when it’s warranted is also affecting the election — albeit passively). In addition, some polls show that a significant number of people will not change their vote just because there’s an indictment.

    4. “The consequences are too far reaching to ignore (except by the most brainwashed morons out there).”

      Unfortunately, right now, the brainwashed morons are the majority.

    5. She will not be indicted; she will not suffer any serious consequences. A Justice Department under the control of a Democratic administration will not pursue the Democratic presidential nominee in an election year. She could practically have been videoed disemboweling toddlers on the Capitol steps and she wouldn’t be indicted.

      1. Just what is it that you’re implying, sir?

        1. Certainly not that a sitting President would actively disparage any party nominated Presidential candidate…Even if she does have her CoS that dealt with her server as her attorney now, and a prosecutor and another attorney suing your presumptive competitor when they happened to donate $$$$ to your campaign and your slush fund.

      2. You’re not saying she did disembowel those toddlers, but she’s not saying she didn’t, either.

    6. I hate to say this with every fiber of my body, but I think Sanders is the best candidate. Too bad his days are numbered.

      1. Define best

    7. Hillary in prison, trading in her orange pants suit for an orange jump suit.

      It is a beautiful dream.

  12. I give her a 50/50 chance of walking out of the convention with the nomination. All those Super-delegates might decide she’s too big a risk.

    1. The problem is, who else is there? If she doesn’t get the nominate, are they really going to nominate Sanders? And if they don’t, then are they really going to nominate someone who didn’t get any delegates or votes?

      Has Debbie Wasserman Schulz been making regular visits to the White House?

      1. Better yet, do their rules even allow them a way out?

        1. Rules are for the peasants.

          1. So, 1968 all over again?

          2. DIng Ding Ding!

            Though if Hillary is dropped and Bernie gets screwed out of this, I’d expect to see a lot of them bolt the party, at least for this election.

            Superdelegates are bad enough, but just handing the nomination to someone who didn’t run is really pissing in their corn flakes. Trump would have a field day egging them on.

        2. They are going try to Torricelli the thing. The federal courts probably aren’t as malleable as NJ’s Supreme Court.

        3. The super-delegates can vote for whomever they like. Clinton will not have enough pledged delegates to avoid this situation.

          Sanders will get the nod if Clinton is sent packing!

      2. Do they have to have a nominee? It would be a strange set of circumstances if the only two candidates were Trump and Johnson.

        Libertarian Moment?!

        My first question was serious. The rest of it was not.

        1. Do they have to have a nominee?

          I daresay it’s not illegal for them not to.

      3. Biden will be the nominee by September. Doesn’t matter what the rules are, this is the DNC.

        I am looking forward to some Biden – Trump debates. Just as many lies as Clinton – Trump, but the two guys will enjoy it more.

        1. Biden vs. Trump 2016: Not the election America wants, or needs, but certainly the election America deserves.

    2. Convention antics seem inevitable at this point. O’Malley vs Ryan?

  13. Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

    She’ll have plenty of opportunity to clear the air when Trump starts into her questions her mercilessly during the debates.

    1. Nah, the “impartial” moderators will step in to save her.

      1. “Excuse me. EXCUUUUSE ME! I’m talking, sleazeball!”

  14. I noted a comment, on some earlier story about who will blackmail a President Clinton first, the Russians or Chinese… funny thing is there was a story here in Canada a while back where it was reported that Blackberry gave the RCMP a backdoor into their encription a long time ago. So I can guarantee they have all her correspondence…Harper tended to be pro American but PM zoolander is your standard Canadian prog anti American reactionary….

  15. Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff discussed the Democratic hopeful’s secret email server with the IT aide who set the system up, but can’t talk about it because she’s now Clinton’s lawyer.

    The brazenness of the Clintons’ sleaze never ceases to amaze.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..awyer.html

    1. Hey, Drake, wanna be each other’s lawyer?

      Then we could — dare I say it? — RULE THE WORLD!!

      1. “I would love to testify about how Rich robbed the bank, but sorry, lawyer-client confidentiality.”

        1. “I would love to testify about how Drake would love to testify about how someone robbed the bank, but sorry, lawyer-client confidentiality.”

    2. but can’t talk about it because she’s now Clinton’s lawyer.

      I’m not sure that’s how ‘privileged communications’ work

      Just because you’re working as a counsel for someone *now* doesn’t make everything you ever talked about in the past when *not* serving as counsel magically retroactively-privileged.

      Of course she can refuse to answer for any reasons, but pretending that she’s doing it because of some lawyerly principle seems just a bit of rhetorical posturing for the media who is too stupid to know different

  16. La la la this article doesn’t exist la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la Reason hates Trump and is really a shill for Democrats la la la I can’t hear you la la la

    /John

  17. My Best friend makes $96/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her paycheck was $12800 just working on the internet for a few hours. you have nothing to lose…
    Read more on this web site..
    Go to tech tab for work detail.——————– http://www.earnmore9.com

    1. Does she have her own server?

    2. Hey I don’t have an internet connection can you email me information about your business opportunity?

  18. What’s worse for her, and is not mentioned here, is the hacking of her private server by the Chinese and Russian governments and who knows who else.

    A couple weeks ago, Russian intelligence revealed they do indeed have copies of all her correspondence as SoS. So far, they’ve released nothing. Can you blame them? If they have any sense at all, they will hold on to it in hopes that hat she wins the election. Depending how on how damaging some of the material in there is (stables in return for contributions to her foundation, anyone?), they will then have an IMMENSE amount in of leverage over the POTUS. So will the Chinese.

    This fact alone should disqualify her from continuing her campaign. She has unwittingly turned herself into a real life Manchurian Candidate.

    1. What difference, at this poi…. ahhh fuck it, this country is FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKEED

    2. Putin tends to kick people’s asses even when he isn’t holding every single card. With this deck he could do whatever he wanted and all president Hillary could do is say, Thank you sir, may I have another?”

      1. Hmmm. eerily similar to what she must have said to Bill before Monica…Her coronation song just has to be “Devil with a Blue dress on…”, just gotta be…

    3. A couple weeks ago, Russian intelligence revealed they do indeed have copies of all her correspondence as SoS

      Link? i’ve seen RW media make similar goofy claims based on nothing except some mention that they’d seen the same exchanges between Syd Blumenthal & Hillary that everyone else in the media saw via the Guccifer hack.

      To my knowledge, Russians have never provided any evidence at all that they had special access to anything (or even claimed as much).

      Given that the world media has had hundreds of thousands of clinton-emails dumped via on them, it would take quite a bit of effort for them to prove that they had something no one else had.

      Of course this doesn’t mean that they *havent’* tried to access Clinton’s server or necessarily failed. Just that i’ve never seen any “proof” that wasn’t in fact just some hyperventilating right-wing asshat trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

      1. I thought I saw something about it here, so not a RW media source, but it may have been one of the commenters. No doubt some of them read right-wing publications.

        In any case, the Russians DON’T have to prove anything. Nor should they. If they trot out something damning now, or even questionable, they might hurt her chances. If they have some real dirt, they would WANT her to win.

        The point wouldn’t be for them to ruin her, it would be for them to exert leverage over the decisions she makes as POTUS.

        It’s true that she might call their bluff, have them reveal what they have, and then just deny it/ignore it. That wouldn’t surprise me either. Even if it was something like direct favours to the Saudis in return for contributions to her fund, she’d just wave it away.

      2. “Of course this doesn’t mean that they *havent’* tried to access Clinton’s server or necessarily failed.”

        G, I have a hard time believing that most any gov’t with an intel service *didn’t* have that info within a week of her putting that server on line.
        I certainly don’t support the Russian gov’t, but I have no reason to doubt their intel (and many, many others) are more than competent to hack a private server lacking any of the security measures they normally deal with. And often, defeat.

        1. And I can see very good reasons for the Bear to keep it quiet, and no good reasons for them to admit it.

  19. The Democratic frontrunner is painted as stubborn, self-isolated, and unaccountable

    Isn’t that what Americans want in a POTUS?

  20. “Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time…”

    Doesn’t that reflect well on Clinton’s prudence?

  21. Look, we have three major candidates still seeking nominations, ALL of them ego maniacs, fighting battles decided long ago.

  22. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  23. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    Click This Link inYour Browser

    ========== http://www.path50.com

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ????? http://www.Reportmax90.com

  25. I am making $95/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $12 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…

    —————————————>>>> http://www.earnmore9.com

  26. wake me up when there are criminal charges and an indictment.

  27. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  28. Anyone else would be in federal custody awaiting trial.

  29. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $98 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…

    ____________________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  30. I am making $98/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $12 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    _____________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  31. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  32. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.