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
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Forbes: OIG email report vindicates Clinton [View all]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#1d862c442c7dBy Charles Tiefer, Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes"
The report released Wednesday . . . does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powells handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.
SNIP
Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clintons emails, could not be said against Powells. Moreover, Powells similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard.
Fourth, the big criticism in the report is regarding the failure to print and file email in a retrievable way. But as the report shows, the Office of the Secretary of State has rarely succeeded in doing that. They either always have better things to do, or it is not a high enough priority, or there are technical difficulties, or turnover. Very likely a stingy Congress does not want to hire enough personnel to have crews doing that throughout the government. In any event, they rarely get that done. Since that is a general problem, why pin it particularly on Clinton?
Fifth . . . Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush the Departments policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute just the bureaucratic policies.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
95 replies, 4933 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (34)
ReplyReply to this post
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I love this line: "To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her."
Arkansas Granny
May 2016
#2
You left out the fact that Colin Powell DELETED ALL his AOL emails when he left office.
pnwmom
May 2016
#40
Yes. AOL is a private company, not an arm of the government. All its servers are private.
pnwmom
May 2016
#92
using a commercial email service provider compromises any classified info in any emails sent thru
Bill USA
May 2016
#86
Millions ofGovernment employees decide on a daily basis which of their work emails to save or delete
politicaljunkie41910
May 2016
#93
"To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her."
workinclasszero
May 2016
#3
Tiefer is the author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts
sufrommich
May 2016
#14
Legally, there isn't a smidgeon of difference in which non-governmental private server was used,
pnwmom
May 2016
#23
I can't cite a law that doesn't exist. And there is no public records law that distinguishes
pnwmom
May 2016
#37
Fine. I meant "the law" in the general sense. There is NO Federal public records law that makes
pnwmom
May 2016
#42
Wonder why the State Department, under HRC, was firing diplomats for conducting
Press Virginia
May 2016
#54
Hillary used her secure, state-department-installed SCIF system for classified documents.
pnwmom
May 2016
#56
There is no evidence that she had any classified information on her email server
pnwmom
May 2016
#64
Please provide a link showing that there was classified information on her server
pnwmom
May 2016
#71
Once again. Notice the words IC ELEMENT SOURCES...that means it's classified when created
Press Virginia
May 2016
#74
Let's seeeee....either the IG is lying and submitting false information to Congress
Press Virginia
May 2016
#81
I think if you look at pg 43 or 44 of the report you'll find the case of the Nairobi ambassador
floppyboo
May 2016
#65
wonder why the Inspector General disagrees with Politifact? Maybe the whole report is junk?
floppyboo
May 2016
#67
Do yor really believe the IG would include a 'mostly false' bit of information? to what end?
floppyboo
May 2016
#70
This is a discussion of what he did wrong with emails, but nowhere does it say that this was
pnwmom
May 2016
#75
um, maybe not primary, but definitely important, and important enough for this study.
floppyboo
May 2016
#85
Your response to the professor's article was to dismiss him as a right winger. I dismiss
pnwmom
May 2016
#19
He's employed by "flat-taxer" Steve Forbes; I figured there must be some rapport.
lagomorph777
May 2016
#21
Tiefer is the author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law
pnwmom
May 2016
#25
Basically she didn't follow any of the security/FAM rules of HER dept. and lied about it.
jmg257
May 2016
#34
Hardly a vindication. The State Dept report didn't even address classified information violations
leveymg
May 2016
#44
LOL Forbes must have missed the lesson on private email accounts vs. private email SERVERS.
Avalux
May 2016
#49
No, the law professor who wrote this understands that there is NO legal distinction
pnwmom
May 2016
#52
Well that is one endorsement that a liberal would want to avoid, libertarian flat taxer anti-minimum
Todays_Illusion
May 2016
#78
Forbes didn't write it. And the law professor who wrote it also wrote a book called
pnwmom
May 2016
#79
So it just accidentally appeared on the Forbes site? I am not going to visit that malware
Todays_Illusion
May 2016
#80