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)

pnwmom

(109,068 posts)
Thu May 26, 2016, 09:35 AM May 2016

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/#1d862c442c7d

By 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. Powell’s 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 Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s 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 Department’s 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.
95 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
K&R mcar May 2016 #1
I love this line: "To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her." Arkansas Granny May 2016 #2
perfectly stated. reddread May 2016 #4
Here is the problem not addressed in the article. Alex4Martinez May 2016 #7
You left out the fact that Colin Powell DELETED ALL his AOL emails when he left office. pnwmom May 2016 #40
Was his AOL on a private server? Alex4Martinez May 2016 #91
Yes. AOL is a private company, not an arm of the government. All its servers are private. pnwmom May 2016 #92
Not true, her server was backed up by Google and McAfee...widely published... Sancho May 2016 #59
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
Awesome, another right wing endorsement of Hillary. lagomorph777 May 2016 #5
He is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore. pnwmom May 2016 #6
Being a law professor isn't much of an endorsement lagomorph777 May 2016 #8
It doesn't make you a right-winger. pnwmom May 2016 #10
Tiefer is the author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts sufrommich May 2016 #14
Thank you! pnwmom May 2016 #18
Not a right wing guy at all. Just a hill partisan cali May 2016 #13
Is that your knee-jerk response to every non-hater, or do you have evidence pnwmom May 2016 #48
This is a well written analysis of the issue Gothmog May 2016 #9
The problem with this situation is that..... Sivart May 2016 #11
and her private email system was hacked polio2 May 2016 #15
"her private email system was hacked" TwilightZone May 2016 #33
the guccifer doodles polio2 May 2016 #36
No it wasn't. Provide proof the email server was hacked. Fla Dem May 2016 #94
Legally, there isn't a smidgeon of difference in which non-governmental private server was used, pnwmom May 2016 #23
What law? Sivart May 2016 #31
I can't cite a law that doesn't exist. And there is no public records law that distinguishes pnwmom May 2016 #37
uh.....what?? Sivart May 2016 #41
Fine. I meant "the law" in the general sense. There is NO Federal public records law that makes pnwmom May 2016 #42
one link?? Sivart May 2016 #43
Here's another. pnwmom May 2016 #45
How conveinient... Sivart May 2016 #46
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
Scott Gration US Ambassador to, I think, Kenya Press Virginia May 2016 #62
There is no evidence that she had any classified information on her email server pnwmom May 2016 #64
Except for the Classified Material that was found on her Server Press Virginia May 2016 #69
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
You want me to believe a letter from CHARLES MCCULLOUGH pnwmom May 2016 #76
Let's seeeee....either the IG is lying and submitting false information to Congress Press Virginia May 2016 #81
Or maybe neither. Maybe the anonymous source is feeding McCullough lies pnwmom May 2016 #82
Hillary, landed under sniper fire because I was named after Edmund Press Virginia May 2016 #84
Considering you were flatly asserting yesterday that she had no SCIF system, pnwmom May 2016 #87
I said unless she had construction to build it she didn't have one Press Virginia May 2016 #88
You flatly asserted in posts before that one that she did NOT have an SCIF. pnwmom May 2016 #89
Uh no Press Virginia May 2016 #90
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
If you're talking about Gration, politifact has addressed his case pnwmom May 2016 #66
wonder why the Inspector General disagrees with Politifact? Maybe the whole report is junk? floppyboo May 2016 #67
The IG doesn't exclude other reasons being involved with his firing. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #68
Do yor really believe the IG would include a 'mostly false' bit of information? to what end? floppyboo May 2016 #70
The IG didn't make the claim you say he did. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #72
Here's the link. Read it again, then tell me where I'm wrong. pp 43-44 floppyboo May 2016 #73
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
He's ignoring the smoking gun, the hacking polio2 May 2016 #12
LOL. He analyzed the report, not some doodles. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #16
Wow, that's your response to a detailed factual analysis? lagomorph777 May 2016 #17
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
a thief who stole bill's doodles from the server polio2 May 2016 #22
You know this because of a photoshopped image? pnwmom May 2016 #26
they're authentic polio2 May 2016 #28
hah! pnwmom May 2016 #29
Hillary supporters are just like Trump supporters polio2 May 2016 #20
I thought we weren't supposed to use right wing sources? Armstead May 2016 #24
Tiefer is the author of "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law pnwmom May 2016 #25
Forbes is a right wing publication owned by Steve Forbes Armstead May 2016 #32
A-friggin'-men! A massive K & R. Surya Gayatri May 2016 #27
Thank you!! fun n serious May 2016 #30
Basically she didn't follow any of the security/FAM rules of HER dept. and lied about it. jmg257 May 2016 #34
The right beating a non-story Iliyah May 2016 #35
its such a bullshit issue... ericson00 May 2016 #38
And they're still using floppy discs in some parts of the government. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #39
And that's an even bigger problem and why... scscholar May 2016 #57
Hardly a vindication. The State Dept report didn't even address classified information violations leveymg May 2016 #44
a nothingburger. Lil Missy May 2016 #47
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
Please provide links to back up your assertions, thanks. n/t Avalux May 2016 #55
Here: pnwmom May 2016 #60
I said this yesterday Dem2 May 2016 #50
I wrote in an earlier thread ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #51
Have you ever worked for the government? Avalux May 2016 #53
Yes ... Most of my career ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2016 #58
Yes! And you are rewarded if you push the limits as much as possible pnwmom May 2016 #77
the professor displays his ignorance. nt grasswire May 2016 #61
Yes! The problem is that those who.. LAS14 May 2016 #63
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
OBVIOUSLY, this Tiefer MUST be a TOOL of the anti-Christ Hillary Clinton. Bernie groupies aren't Bill USA May 2016 #83
of course this will mean nothing to the Repugnants "for" Bernie posting here Bill USA May 2016 #95
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Forbes: OIG email report ...»Reply #0