‘No!’: Anchor Chris Wallace Fiercely Pushes Back Against Democrat’s Clinton Email Cla

I've read it, thats exactly why I'm calling you out as being deceitful.

 

I agree, all three are disqualified from serving as president, horrible judgement, total disregard for the rule of law.

PS Have you ever told a traffic cop "Officer, everyone was speeding."? How did that work out?

 

He got caught red handed peddling a Mother Jones article and trying to pass it off as the OIG report!
Many Hillary supporters will lie, cheat and deceive anyone and everyone to defend her.

And Rice is innocent on this one but while Powell never used a private server in his home, he did use a private email and can go to jail with Hillary as fas as I'm concerned!

 

Not the rules in question. Please read the report.

 

My God, you are just hanging yourself with every post, why is it so hard for you to just say, hey, I was wrong?

 

Once again you are quoting someone's interpretation of the report not the report. The report clearly states that they know for a fact that members of Rice's staff that did not turn in questionnaires use private email for government business. This is a fact. I am not stalling. I would expect you to take a modicum of personal responsibility and find and read the report for yourself. It takes nanoseconds to find the report online.

- - - Updated - - -

Again read the report before you make yourself looking any more foolish.

- - - Updated - - -

At the risk of having this post deleted. You are lying. I did not post that quote from a Mother Jones article. It is straight from the report that for whatever reason you are too lazy to look up and read for yourself. The report is readily available on line and the I quoted it word for word. You are lying when you say I took it from a Mother Jones' article.

 

Here ya go, straight from the OIG

You are full of it my friend
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842723-State-IG-Report-Clinton-Server.html

 

So much for objective reporting!

 

Congratulations on actually finding the report now you should read it.

Pg 23 Para 1 Rice's staff that did not respond to IG questionaire found to be using private email for official business.

Pg 23 Para 4 first sentence is what I quoted word for word.

Now how about an apology.

As to the rules in question as discussed above see pg 36 paras 1 and 2.

As to Rice's staff purposefully not telling the incoming Clinton Administration about the D-109 requirements to print and store emails is located on pg 14 para 3.

 

"In 2005 (before Clinton took office), a State Department manual said information that is "sensitive but unclassified" -- a broad category that covers anything from meeting schedules, to visa applications, to ordinary emails to other federal agencies -- should be emailed through servers authorized by the department." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...lary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/


Once again you're caught, you just can't admit you're wrong can you?

 

From the IG Report:
“Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
The documents turned over to the State Dept., were incomplete..

~~~~~~

Perhaps you should read all the indictable evidence produced by the O.I.G. ESP 16-08:
See: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

 

Caught in what exactly? Quoting the actual IG report which seem incapable of doing? What exactly am I wrong about? Please specify. First you falsely accuse me of being deceptive which I have proven to you was a false claim on your part. Still no apology for that. Now you once again quote a source outside the IG report and claim my quotes of the IG report are wrong. How does that work exactly?

 

Again, I am not claiming that Clinton did not follow Federal Record Keeping rules. What am saying is that here guilt is mitigated by the fact that she turned her emails over. Unlike Secretary Powell and the staff for Secretary Rice. Also the requirement to do so was purposefully withheld from the incoming Clinton Staff by the outgoing Rice staff which is in the IG report. In addition the IG report clearly states that the failure was with the State Department not with individual Secretaries of State.

 

Here's your quote, go ahead and show me where the OIG report "mitigated" Hillary!

DOCUMENT
PAGES
TEXT




Zoom

p. 22​

p. 23​

p. 24​

«

Page 23 of 83​

»

Toggle DescriptionState-IG-Report-Clinton-Server
This is a May 2016 report from the State Department's Inspector General about former secretary Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Original Document (PDF) »
Contributed by: Jack Gillum, Associated Press

 

I told you where it was. Pg23 para 4. Please learn how to read page numbers. You posted pgs 19, 20 and 21 of the report not pg 23.

 

There is no mitigation in this matter, because all the documents were never turned over and incomplete according to the OIG report. The incompleteness of submitting of all documentation is just one more federal offense added to the others that Hillary and her aides have violated.

 

Pulease the whether some one else did something wrong or not isn't the question. The question is did Hillary? Add to this the fact that rather than having an IG there to observe those e mails she deleted were indeed only personal stuff she did it all on her own.

 

From page 14:
Print and File Requirements Not Enforced: S/ES staff have provided numerous trainings for the
Office of the Secretary on records preservation responsibilities and the requirement to print and
file email records. However, S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary
have printed and filed such emails only sporadically. In its discussions with OIG, NARA stated
that this lack of compliance exists across the government. Although the Department is aware of
the failure to print and file, the FAM contains no explicit penalties for lack of compliance, and
the Department has never proposed discipline against an employee for failure to comply. OIG
identified one email exchange occurring shortly before Secretary Clinton joined the Department
that demonstrated a reluctance to communicate the requirement to incoming staff. In the
exchange, records officials within the Bureau of Administration wondered whether there was an
electronic method that could be used to capture the Secretary’s emails because they were “not
comfortable” advising the new administration to print and file email records.

The first sentence states there numerous trainings offered. So, Clinton and her staff should've been trained whether or not Rice and her staff advised them or not.

Also, it does not say Rice's staff withheld the information. Read what it says. "They wondered if there was an electronic method...they were 'not comfortable' advising them to print and file email" There was a reluctance, but it does not say they did not communicate the requirement. And in context, it seems it was because printing and filing was done sporadically and there was no compliance across the government.

 

Again that is not what the IG report says. You can have your own opinion on this but the IG clearly states that this is a mitigating factor. The only "missing" emails are from the first month Clinton was in office as SOS and she clearly stated to the IG that server system was not fully set up yet and that she did not provide those records because she does not have them. As to any other "missing" records those emails were private emails not attached to her official duties.

Again you can have your own opinion on this but you cannot claim that the IG does not believe it to be a mitigating factor when they clearly state it was regardless of the "missing" emails.

 

Also, on page 39:
Secretary Clinton: By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the Department’s guidance was considerably
more detailed and more sophisticated. Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the
Department revised the FAM and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the
obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not
doing so. Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of
these more comprehensive directives.

She was under more comprehensive directives than Powell. Not excusing Powell or Rice or anything, just saying, the rules did change before and during the time Clinton was there.
The report discusses the changes. Clinton was aware of the higher risk of being hacked, for one.

 

Which means they withheld the information purposefully. It is up to everyone's own interpretation whether or not that purposeful disregard for turning over required information was nefarious or not. Again the IG is clear that the fault lies within the State Departments procedures. That is why in the list of corrective actions, which have all been completed, it doesn't list actions necessary from the individual Secretaries of State. It also clearly states that the issue is systemic government wide and not just with the State Department but was particularly bad in the State department over 5 separate SOS.

 

We interpret it differently then. Having a reluctance to do something does not, imo, equate to 'they withheld information purposely'. We have no further information on what was actually passed on or not.
In any event, it clearly states training was made available to the Office of the Secretary.
Seems none of them have a good reason for not following procedures.

 

He also didn't refuse to cooperate with investigators.

 

Secretary Clinton (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013): Former Secretary Clinton did not use a Department email account and has acknowledged using an email account maintained on a private server for official business. As discussed above, in December 2014, her representative produced to the Department 55,000 hard-copy pages of documents, representing approximately 30,000 emails that could potentially constitute Federal records that she sent or received from April 2009 through early 2013. Secretary Clinton’s representative asserted that, because the Secretary emailed Department officials at their government email accounts, the Department already had records of the Secretary’s email preserved within its recordkeeping systems.

97 As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary.
98 At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary 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 upon her departure. OIG concurs with NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete. For example, the Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first few months of Secretary Clinton’s tenure—from January 21, 2009, to March 17, 2009, for received messages; and from January 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, for sent messages. OIG discovered multiple instances in which Secretary Clinton’s personal email account sent and received official business email during this period. For instance, the Department of Defense provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General David Petraeus on his official Department of Defense email account; these 19 emails were not in the Secretary’s 55,000-page production. OIG also learned that the 55,000-page production did

________________________________________
96 OIG sent 23 questionnaires to Secretary Rice’s former staff and received 9 responses. Only one respondent reported using personal email accounts to conduct official business when “Department accounts were down or inaccessible.” Two respondents said they printed emails and filed them into the Department’s records systems; another said he believed IRM “backed up” all emails. One respondent stated she did not recall any specific instructions about retaining emails but assumed all emails were captured electronically.
97 Letter from Cheryl Mills, cdmills Group, to Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management (December 5, 2014). 98 5 FAM 443.3 (October 30, 1995).

UNCLASSIFIED​

not contain some emails that an external contact not employed by the Department sent to Secretary Clinton regarding Department business. In an attempt to address these deficiencies, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Clinton’s “internet service or email provider” to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.
99 The Department conveyed this request to Secretary Clinton’s representative and on November 6, 2015, the Under Secretary for Management reported to NARA that the representative responded as follows:

With regard to her tenure as Secretary of State, former Secretary Clinton has provided the Department on December 5, 2014, with all federal e-mail records in her custody, regardless of their format or the domain on which they were stored or created, that may not otherwise be preserved, to our knowledge, in the Department’s recordkeeping system. She does not have custody of e-mails sent or received during the first few weeks of her tenure as she was transitioning to a new address, and we have been unable to obtain these. In the event we do, we will immediately provide the Department with federal record e-mails in this collection. ​

100 With regard to Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, OIG received limited responses to its questionnaires, though two of Secretary Clinton’s staff acknowledged occasional use of personal email accounts for official business.
101 However, OIG learned of extensive use of personal email accounts by four immediate staff members (none of whom responded to the questionnaire). During the summer of 2015, their representatives produced Federal records in response to a request from the Department, portions of which included material sent and received via their personal email accounts.
102 The material consists of nearly 72,000 pages in hard copy and more than 7.5 gigabytes of electronic data. One of the staff submitted 9,585 emails spanning January 22, 2009, to February 24, 2013, averaging 9 emails per workday sent on a personal email account. In this material, there are instances where the four individuals sent or received emails
___________________________________
99 Letter from Paul M. Wester, Jr., Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA, to Margaret P. Grafeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Systems, Bureau of Administration, U.S. Department of State (July 2, 2015). 100 Letter from Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, to Laurence Brewer, Acting Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government, NARA (November 6, 2015). 101 OIG sent 26 questionnaires to Secretary Clinton’s staff and received 5 responses. Three respondents reported that they did not use personal email accounts to conduct official business. Another reported occasionally using personal email accounts while traveling with the Secretary and when Department accounts were not working. Another said he occasionally used his personal laptop or desktop at home to access the Department’s OpenNet and that he assumed all data processed on OpenNet would be available to the Department. 102 The material was produced to the Department for the following individuals: Title Production Dates Counselor and Chief of Staff 6/25/2015; 8/10/2015; 8/12/2015 Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 7/9/2015; 8/7/2015 Deputy Chief of Staff/Director of Policy Planning 7/30/2015 Deputy Assistant Secretary, Strategic Communications 7/28/2015; 8/6/15

UNCLASSIFIED ESP-16-03 25 ​

regarding Department business using only their personal web-based email accounts. Accordingly, these staff failed to comply with Department policies intended to implement NARA regulations, because none of these emails were preserved in Department recordkeeping systems prior to their production in 2015.
103 As noted above, NARA has concluded that these subsequent productions mitigated their failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during their service as Department employees. However, OIG did not attempt to determine whether these productions were complete. None of these individuals are currently employed by the Department.

 

Why dont you learn how to read, the damn page numbers are right in front of your eyes!
You should be suspended from PF for being so dishonest!