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
In reply to the discussion: For those who don't recall, Hillary left the Inspector General position at State unfilled [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)19. Sunlight Foundation
In researching how an IG gets appointed (as there are no links above) I discovered:
What a State Department's inspector general can tell us about open government
by Alex Howard
Sunlight Foundation, MAY 26, 2016, 4:15 P.M.
The release of a critical report by the U.S. State Departments inspector general on former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons email practices answers questions that have lingered since last March, raises new ones and creates a moment to reaffirm our expectations for accountability from public servants and their staff.
The former secretary of state's contention that she complied with the law evades the broader issue: She relied exclusively on a private, unaccountable email system that shielded public records from internal and external scrutiny, disregarded internal efforts that should have led to a change in that system, and then made a series of decisions that created much more difficulty for investigators auditing the systems to assess security or classification issues.
Unfortunately, Clintons arrangement, instead of protecting the public trust, seems designed to do the opposite shield information from any potential public view.
Electronic records are getting harder to manage, but government security rules, regulations and laws exist for a reason. While compliance with them can be time-consuming, no official should be above the law. Proper records management empowers public oversight, and setting up a parallel email system allowed Clinton to evade the Freedom of Information Act, congressional oversight and the reach of inspectors general all of which play a critical role holding agencies accountable.
Since Clinton left office without turning over her email records to the State Department, it has become extremely difficult to determine which records were governmental and which were not. Allowing a full, independent legal review of a cabinet secretarys email account (covering both personal correspondence and official business) would have been an extraordinary concession for Clinton to make but so was using a private email server exclusively for government business.
Gaps in the email trove turned over to the Department of State also drive home how problematic it was for Clintons private lawyers to review records to determine what was public business or not. Given that emails with government business have been found that were not turned over, public trust in that process is understandably shaken.
In addition to the concerns about email practices and retention, the inspector general report raises questions about the security of the systems used to transmit data. The apparent disregard for internal checks and balances regarding securing legal authority or security assurance is far short of what we should expect of political appointees and their staffs. We expect government officials to respect security warnings when transmitting sensitive data. If legal and IT practices are in question, the agency and its leadership have a responsibility to address those and work together to develop secure mobile options for those who need them.
The report also indicates that Clintons former staff did not fully cooperate with investigators. The public should not have to expect the Department of Justice or a federal judge to compel executive branch secretaries to explain how they used personal email or detail how they protect and secure confidential diplomatic communications.
CONTINUED w/links, resources and stuff that helps us know...
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/05/26/what-a-state-departments-inspector-general-can-tell-us-about-open-government/
Amazing what one can learn reading DU, KoKo!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
For those who don't recall, Hillary left the Inspector General position at State unfilled [View all]
BernieforPres2016
May 2016
OP
Kerry had one nominated, vetted, confirmed and seated within 6 months after taking over.
NWCorona
May 2016
#1
Imagine Hillary's people telling computer security people this issue is never to be brought up again
BernieforPres2016
May 2016
#2
That is an important point. It is a glimpse into how she would run the executive.
morningfog
May 2016
#3
It is the President who puts forth the nomination of cabinate-level positions such as the
riversedge
May 2016
#6
You can thank the GOP for that. The SOS doesn't make the appointment, the prez does.
tonyt53
May 2016
#9
As I said above--it is the President to nominates the IG of cabinate-level positions (eg. SOS)
riversedge
May 2016
#12
What do you mean we'll never know? The FBI recovered all those deleted emails. THEY know
pdsimdars
May 2016
#16
This is as nonsensical as the claim that Clinton gave a stand down order to the military
annavictorious
May 2016
#28