HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "The executive branch enf...

Thu May 26, 2016, 11:34 AM

 

"The executive branch enforces laws." aka "Are you smarter than a 3rd grader?"

I am sitting here completely flabbergasted by Hillary Clinton supporters who do not seem to understand the devastating implications to her campaign from yesterday's State Department Inspector General Report.

The opening lines are wince worthy:

The Federal Records Act requires appropriate management and preservation of Federal Government records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of an agency. For the last two decades, both Department of State (Department) policy and Federal regulations have explicitly stated that emails may qualify as Federal records.

As is the case throughout the Federal Government, management weaknesses at the Department have contributed to the loss or removal of email records, particularly records created by the Office of the Secretary. These weaknesses include a limited ability to retrieve email records, inaccessibility of electronic files, failure to comply with requirements for departing employees, and a general lack of oversight.

Yes, "management weaknesses" includes Albright, Rice, Powell and Clinton. And for those who are totally clueless, the Federal Records Act became federal law in 1950. But it gets better, because this report is extremely blunt:

Page 23:

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. 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.

So, in black-and-white, Hillary Clinton ignored a law she found to be inconvenient.

But was it just her? No!

Pages 24-25:

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. 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. 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 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. 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.

Anyone surprised? Why should staff working for Hillary Clinton have to comply with Federal Records Act law? Seriously, it was inconvenient to either hit the print button or use the electronic system? Any WHY weren't they using their ".gov" accounts? Boy, do I feel better about how she will "enforce laws" from people she has taken millions of dollars in donations from -- I'm confident that she will really care about the "inconvenient laws" those people dislike, right?

For those who interested, you can download the PDF here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

But the bottom line is this:

"The legislative branch makes laws. The executive branch enforces laws. The judicial branch decides what the law means. Each branch can only do its own job. The President is part of the executive branch. So the President does not make laws. The executive branch can only enforce law."

That is from a third grade social studies book (pg 300) published in 2009. If Hillary was unwilling to follow the law when it comes to simple Federal Records for her and her staff, she is NOT QUALIFIED to be the head of the branch that ENFORCES LAWS.

Spin it how you want -- the next scandal to taint our party is going to be the content of those emails, and whether her foolish, self indulgent behavior actually requires a criminal indictment.

26 replies, 944 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply "The executive branch enforces laws." aka "Are you smarter than a 3rd grader?" (Original post)
IdaBriggs May 2016 OP
frylock May 2016 #1
IdaBriggs May 2016 #3
frylock May 2016 #4
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #6
840high May 2016 #26
bigtree May 2016 #2
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #5
NWCorona May 2016 #9
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #10
NWCorona May 2016 #11
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #14
NWCorona May 2016 #7
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #8
Tarc May 2016 #12
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #15
Tarc May 2016 #22
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #23
Tarc May 2016 #24
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #25
seabeyond May 2016 #13
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #16
seabeyond May 2016 #17
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #18
seabeyond May 2016 #19
seabeyond May 2016 #20
nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #21

Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:25 PM

1. I particularly enjoy the posts insisting that the report is actually favorable to Sec Clinton.

These folks are going to have a complete emotional breakdown when the FBI issues their recommendation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #1)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:31 PM

3. I can sympathize - the problem is they BELIEVE her, against all good sense.

 

I remember how disappointed I was when I found out John Edwards was screwing around on his terminally ill wife/had gotten another woman pregnant.

I think it's going to be even harder for her true believers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #3)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:33 PM

4. Any sympathy I may have felt is long gone at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #4)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:38 PM

6. After what some of them continue to do, off site of course

 

I am with you. After 2008 I swore to never fall in love with any of our lovely crooked pols. So I have not. It is liberating actually. And yes, that includes Sanders. I just don't fall in love with them. Polucies...and I expect them to break them. There are structural reasons.

But these folks, zero sympathy at this point. And lord knows when tjey call this report propaganda...well then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #1)

Thu May 26, 2016, 03:47 PM

26. When I read those

 

posts all I could do is wonder if they lost their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:30 PM

2. a third grader can interpret this report more accurately than you have. Get a grip.

from Crooks and Liars:


Inspector General's Report On Clinton's Email Greatly Exaggerated By Media Outlets

Clinton did take action to preserve her emails, as the report notes. On Page 66 of the report, Janice Jacobs, the State Departments Transparency Coordinator, specifically addressed Clinton's handling of the emails:

In addition the Department had already received Secretary Clinton's emails and undertook to release 30,000 of them to the public. The National Archives and Records Administration concluded that our efforts with respect to Secretary Clinton and her senior staff mitigated past problems, as has a federal district court in a suit brought under the Federal Records Act. As you note in your report, you concur with this conclusion.


The State Department, the OIG, and NARA all concurred that Clinton's actions in turning over the emails she had, in addition to others the State Department was able to discover, did mitigate not following proper procedures (i.e. printing out each email and filing it). It's true that in the beginning of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, during the first two months transition period, some emails were lost. However, there was no indication that an attempt was made to deliberately hide these emails from a salivating public: it's technology; stuff happens.

... I can almost hear the calls of "criminal Hillary" from a certain party who shall go nameless. Note, though, as the report mentions, there were no administrative penalties in place—either about the use of a private email server, or not following the established procedures for preserving emails—at the time Clinton served as Secretary of State. Moreover, there is indication that she wasn't even aware of the requirements.

report:

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.


State Department personnel were discouraged from using their private email, but not explicitly forbidden from doing so. As quoted in the CNN story—the one where Clinton was purportedly "slammed' by the OIG—the State Department spokesman concurred:

State Department spokesman Mark Toner briefed reporters Wednesday: "While not necessarily encouraged, there was no prohibition on using personal email. The only requirement is that -- and the regulations do state this, that these records need to be preserved."


To repeat what I wrote earlier, the OIG report was focused on the State Department's procedures in place for emails; it's not specifically focused on Clinton. It may be more titillating to say that the OIG is "slamming" Clinton, or that the OIG report was "sharply critical of Clinton"...but it's also inaccurate, and misleading.


read more: http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/oig-report-states-email-handling-including

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:35 PM

5. You try. But this report is not good.

 

In any shape or form. Nor is this a nothing burger, nor is it going away. Buckle up, turbulence ahead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #5)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:55 PM

9. That article is a complete joke!

I love how they can only highlight only certain words while leaving out the ones that contradict the point being made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #9)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:56 PM

10. The process of spin creation at play

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:59 PM

11. Did you see when McCaskill said that Hillary was wrong but only wanted so privacy?

This is playing out like a soap opera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:09 PM

14. It is playing like any real serious scandal, including tne denial

 

By core supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:52 PM

7. Complete spin.

"The National Archives and Records Administration concluded that our efforts with respect to Secretary Clinton and her senior staff mitigated past problems, as has a federal district court in a suit brought under the Federal Records Act. As you note in your report, you concur with this conclusion."

This says it was the efforts of the state department and the FOIA suit in federal court was the impetus of the mitigation. That doesn't excuse Hillary at all.

"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. "

All this says is there isn't any "explicit penalties" it of no way absolves Hillary.


"State Department spokesman Mark Toner briefed reporters Wednesday: "While not necessarily encouraged, there was no prohibition on using personal email. The only requirement is that -- and the regulations do state this, that these records need to be preserved.""

This is so laughable that I will just leave this here.


I like crooks and liars but that article was weak sauce!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #7)

Thu May 26, 2016, 12:55 PM

8. They also skipped the intro.

 



The report writer makes it painfully clear that this is not a legal thing, but a process thing. I suspect that BT would not take the offer to go to RSD...and just download the report. We are hosting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:03 PM

12. Lol, "the devastating implications". The report vindicates Clinton more than anything

Basically, gov't IT sucks, and many departments do endarounds to get stuff done in the 21st century.

What this boils down to is that Clinton sidestepped department policies that previous SoSs have as well. This was never about actual lawbreaking or criminal wrongdoing.

Emailgate now has one foot in the grave, and the other one is hanging on by a dirty toenail.

I realize that there's going to be a lot of whining and face-saving attempts by the Berniefans today, but just like when you reach for that last Pringles chip and your hands gets stuck, sometimes you just have to learn to let go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #12)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:10 PM

15. Instead of talking from both sides

 

You should go read the full report.

Concentrate on tje intro and how this is not a legal document. We are hosting it so you do not have to hunt too far

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #15)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:36 PM

22. There is no Indictment Fairy coming to rescue your boy, I'm afraid

No indictment, no "gross negligence", just a violation of record-keeping rules, as most previous SoS have done.

Enjoy your crow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #22)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:40 PM

23. The Inspector General of any agency

 

Does not do criminal indictments. I understand your confusion. That would be the DOJ

Now if you want to pretend to be informed, go read the report. We are hosting it so citizens read it and make up their own mind. Old fashioned I know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #23)

Thu May 26, 2016, 03:17 PM

24. There is no Indictment Fairy coming to rescue your boy, I'm afraid

We'll just repeat as needed, since it doesn't seem to be penetrating the fog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #24)

Thu May 26, 2016, 03:19 PM

25. I prefer to watch this as it develops

 

And the scandal is accelerating. I know who is in a fog and it is not me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:05 PM

13. Amazing trying to make something out of this for your gotcha moment because your candidate lost

 

and this is your only hope, yet no embarrassed that you all have reduced yourself to this 3rd grade behavior, regardless of facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #13)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:12 PM

16. This will be a strange concept

 

Just like election integrity likely is...corruption in government, and document preservation, is pretty much independent of the person, or letter behind their name. This will dog her...it is not dead. Buckle up. And if you actually bother to look at a timeline, you will realize this is not going away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #16)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:25 PM

17. You will make sure it dogs her not bringing any balance to the conversation. I get that.

 

Just like you all do with your election integrity, with all that integrity applying false accusations and blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #17)

Thu May 26, 2016, 01:31 PM

18. My view this is a slow moving scandal

 

Your view it is not there is no middle ground

I should add. I read the full report. It is not a good report. And it contradicts her stories fundamentally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #18)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:12 PM

19. It is right along with Benghazi and look at Sanders people playing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #19)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:12 PM

20. No. It is significantly less than Benghazi actually.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #20)

Thu May 26, 2016, 02:20 PM

21. My suggestion is to look at a timeline

 

It might clue you in as to how this is beyond, or actually a continuum partially with Benghazi. We actually put together a much simpler one than Paul Thomsom's since that is for the general public

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread