State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

a reply to: shooterbrody

Colin Powell is cooperating unlike Hillary and her minions.

Not entirely correct.

The State Department asked Powell to try to receive relevant emails from his internet provider, but “as of May 2016 the Department has not received a response” from Powell, the audit said.

www.msnbc.com...

a reply to: introvert

For clarification - are you stating that because she knowingly "broke rules and guidelines" that she did not break the law, but only internal 'rules' of the SD?

That is a non-starter. In my line of work, different agencies have different procurement 'policies and guidelines' that are based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which help enforce things like the Service Contract Act, the Walsh-Healy Act, and the Anti-Deficiency Act, etc. Guidelines and rules within agencies when broken indicate that federal law (an Act) was violated.

I am not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it, but the other posters here have a real point - the SD letting this report get released is a classic example of CYA / distancing themselves. I.e. various higher level career folks are saying they warned her of the risks and fact that it was against the law but she did it anyway.

Do you have any experience working for the Government or have you ever possessed a clearance, the public trust, or a Contracting Officer's warrant? People with these kind of experiences know how vital and specific the law is when it comes to what Hillary did.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

The proof is in the report.
If you want to keep denying, you are going to have to hide your head under your pillow.
If you open your eyes, the truth is right there in front of you. You can't continue to avoid it.

The report has not been released yet. What has been released that shows it was hacked?

And don't give me that "I work in IT" crap. That is a logical fallacy and doesn't mean #.

Seems about right.. So have rolled out the jpeg again

a reply to: introvert

Colin Powell was interviewed by the IG
Hillary and her minions refused to be interviewed by the IG

I know what to get you for christmas, a dictionary.

cooperationor co-operation
[koh-op-uh-rey-shuh n]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
2.
more or less active assistance from a person, organization, etc.:
We sought the cooperation of various civic leaders.
3.
willingness to cooperate :
to indicate cooperation.
4.
Economics. the combination of persons for purposes of production, purchase, or distribution for their joint benefit:
producers' cooperation; consumers' cooperation.
5.
Sociology. activity shared for mutual benefit.
6.
Ecology. mutually beneficial interaction among organisms living in a limited area.

a reply to: introvert

How is Powell relevant? Has there been any court case regarding his actions? If not, there is no precedence.

a reply to: burntheships

Which laws?

a reply to: SonOfThor

For clarification - are you stating that because she knowingly "broke rules and guidelines" that she did not break the law, but only internal 'rules' of the SD?

No. What I am saying is that the repercussions of such actions may not equate to criminal charges. If I am not mistaken, issues like this are dealt with internally.

I am not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it, but the other posters here have a real point - the SD letting this report get released is a classic example of CYA / distancing themselves. I.e. various higher level career folks are saying they warned her of the risks and fact that it was against the law but she did it anyway.

Ok. I was not addressing that point whatsoever.

Do you have any experience working for the Government or have you ever possessed a clearance, the public trust, or a Contracting Officer's warrant? People with these kind of experiences know how vital and specific the law is when it comes to what Hillary did.

How is that relevant? It's completely anecdotal and their opinions are meaningless when we do not have all the information yet.

a reply to: shooterbrody

But he has not handed-over the emails they requested.

a reply to: introvert

yet


At least he had the integrity to speak to the IG

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: introvert

How is Powell relevant? Has there been any court case regarding his actions? If not, there is no precedence.

Failure to indict a former SoS on similar charges when the SD report allegedly states he has been guilty of doing similar things will be precedence in and of itself.

If this report is correct and they indict Hillary and not Powell as well, the lawsuits are going to come out of the woodwork.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

yet


At least he had the integrity to speak to the IG

True, but he has not handed over the emails yet. So by your own definition, he has not fully-cooperated.

Do I need to refer back to your post giving us that definition?

a reply to: introvert

For legal precedence there has to have been a case established to set said precedence.

I would argue, that is the reason Powell has partially co-operated so far and agreed to be interviewed. A Hillary indictment, if one of the charges is in relation to the Federal Records Act, he may also face a formal investigation.

Last I checked, Powell does not have an active investigation into his communications (yet).

a reply to: MOMof3

Hillary failed to report hack attempts.

Hillary lied on several occasions.

She did not turn over her emails until long after she left office (violates the Federal Records Act(s))

The 5 stages of denial are being experienced all at the same time now.

And for grins & giggles ......

here's the actual report...

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements

it's downloadable too !!!!

a reply to: SonOfThor

For legal precedence there has to have been a case established to set said precedence.

I did not say legal precedence. What I did say is that if other SoS's have done similar things and were not indicted, that is setting a standard (precedence) for us to look at.

he may also face a formal investigation.

He may, but what if he gets off scott-free?

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks. Time to start reading.

a reply to: introvert

Fair enough - I'll give you that you meant something different. I work in contract law so I put a ridiculous (nauseating according to my wife) value to individual words.

Here's the rub, if her case sets precedence and she is found guilty, then that precedence would / could be used in a case against him. Her case (as far as I know Powell is not under investigation yet) would set the precedent and the punishment given to her for her breaking of the same law would be used in determining the punishment for Powell...

a reply to: introvert

Try all you like to make this about any one else except Hillary.
This investigation was not commissioned because of what any earlier SOS did; this investigation was commissioned because of what Hillary did.
Hillary broke the law when she chose to use her own devices. Hillary tried to hide this fact from investigations. Hillary instructed her staff not to speak about her email arrangement. Hillary instructed her staff to break the law by sending classified info on a nonsecure network. Hillary refused to be interviewed by the IG for this investigation.

No matter how you try to muddy the water Hillary has broken the law and will be indicted. The current administration will not cover for her. She received public notice of that today.