The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Trump on Clinton email report Not good
Hillary Clinton did not comply with policy on email records: reports
BREAKING NEWS: State Dept. Audit Finds Hillary At Fault For Emails
Clinton Faulted on Emails by State Dept. Audit
Clinton server ‘attacked’: 5 highlights from State Dept. IG report
Shocker: State Dept. Can’t Find Any Emails From IT Specialist Who Set Up Clinton Secret Server
State Department audit clobbers Clinton
Bill Clinton Mocks FBI Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Emails
UH OH – FBI ‘A-Team’ now looking to see whether Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act
KRAUTHAMMER: CLINTON TO BE INDICTED OR THERE WILL BE CRIMINAL REFERRAL
Clinton Cash – Official Trailer
Peter Schweizer Tells Hannity How Clintons Made Millions From Rich Pardon
The Tangled Clinton Web • Clinton Cash • 4/24/15 •
147 FBI Agents Working on Hillary Clinton’s Email Investigation
State Dept IG Finds Hillary Clinton Violated Government Records Act and Refused to Speak to Investigators
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
Politico reports that the State Department inspector general has concluded that Hillary Clinton violated State’s recordkeeping protocols. The finding is contained in a much anticipated report provided to Congress today.
Significantly, the report also reveals that Clinton and her top aides at State — Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, and possibly others — refused to cooperate with the IG’s investigation despite the IG’s requests that they submit to interviews.
The report is devastating, although it transparently strains to soften the blow. For example, it concludes that State’s “longstanding systemic weaknesses” in recordkeeping “go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.” Yet, it cannot avoid finding that Clinton’s misconduct is singular in that she, unlike her predecessors, systematically used private e-mail for the purpose of evading recordkeeping requirements.
“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. By failing to do so, and compounding that dereliction with a failure to “surrender all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service,” Clinton, the IG finds, “did not comply with the Department’s policies.”
This articulation of Mrs. Clinton’s offense is also sugar-coated. By saying Clinton violated “policies,” the IG avoids concluding that she violated the law. But the IG adds enough that we can connect the dots ourselves. The “policies,” he elaborates, “were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” To violate the policies — as Shannen Coffin has explained here at National Review — is to violate the law.
The IG report elucidates that Clinton and her aides knew this to be the case. Politico notes: The report states that its findings are based on interviews with current Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, but that Clinton and her deputies declined the IG’s requests for interviews. Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin are among those who did not cooperate with the investigation.
The importance of this goes unstated but we can connect the dots. When a government official or former government official refuses to answer questions in a formal government investigation into potential wrongdoing, this in effect is the assertion of a legal privilege not to speak — otherwise, there is no valid reason not to cooperate.
So what conceivable legal privilege do Clinton, Mills, Sullivan, and Abedin have that would allow them to refuse to answer investigators’ questions? Only one: the Fifth Amendment privilege — i.e., the refusal to answer on the grounds that truthful responses might be incriminating.
I foreshadowed this a few days back in a column, surmising that Ms. Mills must have gotten some form of immunity in exchange for agreeing to be interviewed by the FBI and federal prosecutors:
Earlier this year, a State Department inspector general (IG) issued a report regarding the department’s appalling record of non-compliance with FOIA during Clinton’s tenure. It noted that Mills was well aware that Clinton’s e-mails circumvented State’s filing system and therefore were not searched in order to determine whether some were responsive to FOIA requests. This was a violation of federal law, which requires each government agency to undertake a search that is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” (See Report at p. 8 & n.29 and pp. 14-15.) Mills not only failed to ensure that such a search was done; she knowingly allowed the State Department to represent — falsely, it turned out — that it possessed no responsive documents.
We now know that, when IG investigators attempted to question Mills to ascertain why she did that, she told them, through her lawyer, that she refused to speak with them. (See January 27, 2016, letter of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) to Secretary of State John F. Kerry.) She had good reason to take that position: Obstructing an agency’s lawful compliance with a FOIA request could constitute a felony. For present purposes, though, the point is that Mills’s refusal to cooperate with the State Department IG suggests she has concerns about potential criminal jeopardy. It thus seems highly unlikely that she consented to an interview by FBI agents conducting a criminal investigation unless she was given some form of immunity. . . .
So was Mills given at least qualified immunity in exchange for answering the FBI’s questions?
The media was abuzz a few months back when it emerged that Brian Pagliano, the old Clinton hand who was placed on the State Department payroll to service Hillary’s homebrew server, had been given immunity for prosecution in exchange for cooperating with the FBI. Why was it such a big story? Because the conferral of immunity implied that Pagliano believed he’d be incriminating himself if he cooperated with investigators.
Well . . . what are we to make of the refusal by Clinton, Mills, Sullivan, and Abedin to cooperate with the Obama State Department IG?
What are we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course she is prepared to cooperate — and encourages her subordinates to cooperate — with government investigators?
And how is a former high government official who systematically evaded federal records requirements and then refused to cooperate with a government investigation into that evasion conceivably fit to be president of the United States?
State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger
The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”
The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.
The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.
[Here are the most critical parts of the report]
The report found that a top Clinton aide was warned in 2010 that the system may not properly preserve records but dismissed those worries, indicating that the system passed legal muster. But the inspector general said it could not show evidence of a review by legal counsel.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement that Clinton’s use of email was consistent with that of other secretaries and top officials at State and warned that “political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report” for partisan purposes. “The report shows that problems with the State Department’s electronic record-keeping systems were long-standing,” he said, adding that “she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”
The 83-page report reviews email practices by five secretaries of state and generally concludes that record keeping has been spotty for years.
It was particularly critical of former secretary of state Colin Powell — who has acknowledged publicly that he used a personal email account to conduct business — concluding that he too failed to follow department policy designed to comply with public-record laws.
[Read the fullinspector general’s report]
Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, said the report underscores the need for federal agencies to adapt “decades-old record-keeping practices to the email-dominated modern era.” He said it is clear from the report that the department could have preserved emails better under multiple secretaries of state but said that multiple improvements have been put in place under Secretary of State John F. Kerry to improve record retention.
The timing of the report is inconvenient for Clinton, who now faces an intense onslaught of attacks from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
[The Fix: Clinton’s email problem just got much worse]
But its release — as well as the conclusion of an ongoing FBI investigation — have also been seen for months by her allies as key milestones to finally putting the email issue to rest. They have worked to inoculate her against potentially critical findings, accusing the State Department’s inspector general of working in concert with congressional Republicans to harm her presidential campaign and noting that a top inspector general official used to work for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).
The inspector general has rejected allegations of bias, noting that the scope of the review encompasses secretaries of both parties and that it was undertaken at the direction of Clinton’s Democratic successor, Kerry. The report includes interviews with Kerry and Powell and former secretaries Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, but it says that Clinton declined to be interviewed. The inspector general, Steve Linick, was appointed by President Obama and has served since 2013.
The FBI investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified material through her use of the private server in her home in suburban New York is still underway. FBI Director James B. Comey has said there is no “external deadline” for concluding that probe, but he acknowledged that there is pressure to wrap up the matter promptly and thoroughly.
Officials have said they plan to interview Clinton about the matter soon; she has expressed willingness to sit for such a session. They have also told The Post that their investigation so far has found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules.
[How Clinton’s email scandal took root]
About 2,000 chains of Clinton’s correspondence include emails that the State Department has since said are classified. A Washington Post analysis found that Clinton herself wrote 104 of those notes. Others were written by about 300 other people, including longtime diplomats and top officials in the national security community.
The new report focuses on record keeping and how Clinton and previous secretaries of state maintained documents regarding public business. She has said she complied with laws requiring the preservation of documents, including emails, because she emailed other government officials at their official accounts, knowing their emails would be retained on public servers.
[Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified]
But she has not explained how she intended to preserve emails sent to private citizens, who did not use government email. Some emails have emerged, particularly from Clinton’s first months in office in 2009, when her aides have said she was transitioning technology, that she did not provide to the State Department.
The inspector general cited those emails in concluding that Clinton’s 2014 submission of what she characterized as all of her public records was “incomplete.”
In December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office, she turned over more than 30,000 emails she said represented all of her work-related correspondence. She said that she also exchanged about 31,000 personal emails during her time as secretary and that those messages have been deleted.
Hillary Clinton failed to report several hacking attempts, grew afraid of opening emails
– The Washington Times
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a secret email to conduct official business broke a number of department policies, an inspector general concluded in a report sent to Capitol Hill Wednesday that also suggests she used the account to try to hide her communications from the public.
The 83-page report, obtained by The Washington Times, is devastating in its evaluation of Mrs. Clinton’s behavior, saying it can find no record of her getting approval from either security or legal staffers for her unique arrangement. The report also undercuts many of her campaign’s explanations for her use of the system, dismisses comparisons to her predecessors’ email use, and points to repeated hacking attempts that she failed to report.
After one of the 2011 hack attempts Mrs. Clinton’s tech staffer shut the server down for a few minutes, hoping that would solve the situation, but quickly warned top aides not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive” after the attempted breach, according to the report, which was obtained by The Washington Times.
PHOTOS: These pro-gun celebrities may shock you
After another suspicious attempt Mrs. Clinton said she was scared to open email — but failed to report the matter.
“Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” the investigators said. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”
At one point in 2010, Mrs. Clinton’s emails were ending up in subordinates’ spam filters because they were coming from a non-state.gov account. One of her top aides urged her to sign up for an official account or letting everyone in the department know of her address so she could be added as a verified account, but she refused, saying she didn’t “want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
VOTE NOW: Should Hillary be disqualified from White House amid email scandal?
In 2011, technology staffers proposed giving her an official department Blackberry to replace her personal device, which was malfunctioning. The staffers said she already had an official account, used to maintain her calendar, but said using it for email would make her messages subject to open-records requests. Her top personal aide, Huma Abedin, rejected the suggestion, saying it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
Mrs. Clinton, in a striking move, refused to cooperate with the probe. All of her colleagues did: current Secretary John Kerry and former Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright.
Mrs. Clinton’s staff was also reluctant, the investigators said. Her chief of staff, deputy chiefs of staff and her technology gurus all refused to cooperate with the probe.
The emails have proved damaging to Mrs. Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Her campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning, but her spokesman posted a Twitter message saying the report “makes clear her personal email use was not unique at State Dept.”
Mrs. Clinton has said her use of the secret email account was not a good choice, but has insisted she did not break any laws and did not risk secure information.
The new report lays out many of the details of Mrs. Clinton’s server. The domain name clintonemail.com was registered on Jan. 13, while she was still serving in the Senate and before she was confirmed to be secretary on Jan. 21.
State Department staffers were repeatedly asked to help solve problems with Mrs. Clinton’s server and her devices, such as her Blackberry — particularly in trying to communicate between her secret address and the state.gov accounts used by most of her subordinates.
But the inspector general was unable to discover who gave the final approval for Mrs. Clinton to use the odd arrangement. The department’s legal office said it was not asked to review or approve the setup, and was unaware of anyone else approving it — though some of them did email Mrs. Clinton on her secret account.
Democrats have pointed to Mr. Powell, who also used a personal email account while at the department, as precedent for Mrs. Clinton’s actions.
“The Inspector General confirmed what we have known all along — that Secretary Clinton followed the practice of her predecessor when she used a personal email account,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. “While Secretary Clinton preserved and returned tens of thousands of pages of her emails to the Department for public release, Secretary Powell returned none. Republicans need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars singling out Secretary Clinton just because she is running for President.”
But the inspector general said the IT environment was fluid during Mr. Powell’s time in office, and had firmed up substantially by the time Mrs. Clinton took office.
During her tenure, the department specifically warned employees not to send information deemed “sensitive but unclassified” outside of the internal network, and said if they needed to do so, they should speak with tech staffers to work out a solution. Mrs. Clinton never did so.
“OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU,” the investigators said.
State Department report on Clinton’s email practices
The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.” Read more about the report
Federal Records Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Federal Records Act of 1950 is a United States federal law enacted in 1950. It provides the legal framework for federal records management, including record creation, maintenance, and disposition.
The Federal Records Act came following the recommendations of the Hoover Commission (1947-49). The act, and its related regulations, require each federal agency to establish an ongoing program for records management and to cooperate with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). A 1985 NARA pamphlet describes the Federal Records Act as the “basis for the Federal Government’s policies and procedures for creating, maintaining, and disposing of Federal records. The act and its related regulations define Federal records, mandate the creation and preservation of those records necessary to document Federal activities, establish Government ownership of records, and provide the exclusive legal procedures for the disposition of records.” The Second Hoover Commission(1953-55) addressed paperwork management and recommended the adoption of program relating to “directives management, reports management, paperwork quality control, and clerical work measurement.” As a result, the first Guide to Record Retention Requirements was published in 1955; the guide is updated annually and is used by archivists and other record managers both in and out of government.
The Federal Records Act was amended over time. Amendments in 1976 emphasized paperwork reduction and information lifecycle management. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, which followed the issuance of the report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork in 1977, introduced information resources management and gave responsibility to the Office of Management and Budget for creating federal information policy standards.
In December 2014, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 was signed into law by President Barack Obama. This bipartisan act, which followed the 2011 President’s Memorandum on Managing Government Records, modernizes the Federal Records Act. The act expressly expands the definition of federal records to include electronic records (the first change to the definition of “Federal record” since the enactment of the act in 1950). The act also grants the Archivist of the United States the final determination as to what constitutes a Federal record; “authorizes the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the president”; “clarifies the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems”; and “empowers the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal.”
44 U.S. Code Chapter 31 – RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
44 U.S. Code § 3101 – Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
44 U.S. Code § 3106 – Unlawful removal, destruction of records
(a)Federal Agency Notification.—
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
In any case in which the head of a Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
(Pub. L. 90–620
, Oct. 22, 1968
, 82 Stat. 1298
; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, § 107(b)(21)
, title II, § 203(b), Oct. 19, 1984
, 98 Stat. 2290
, 2294; Pub. L. 113–187, § 4
, Nov. 26, 2014
, 128 Stat. 2009
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
1 potty /ˈpɑːti/ noun
Learner’s definition of POTTY
[count] : a pot that children use as a toilet until they are big enough to use a toilet
the potty : the toilet or bathroom — used by children or when talking to children
: to use the toilet — used by children or when talking to children.
2 potty /ˈpɑːti/ adjective
Learner’s definition of POTTY
[also more potty; most potty] British, informal
: very interested in or excited about someone or something
Eric Cartman girls restroom
South Park- Eric Cartman Rage!
(Video) Obama Warns Schools Over Transgender Bathroom – The End of the Public School System
Texas will not “be blackmailed” – as Obama orders Bathroom Access Rights for Transgenders Nationwide
Obama Toilet Training America
What Pisses Me Off About Transgender Bathrooms
President Obama arrived for a Medal of Valor ceremony at the White House on Monday.CreditZach Gibson/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday made an impassioned argument for his administration’s decision to instruct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, saying that society must protect the dignity and safety of vulnerable children.
The remarks were the president’s first public comments on a directive released Friday that has added fuel to a searing national debate over transgender rights. Mr. Obama said the guidance, issued by the Education and Justice Departments, represented “our best judgment” on how to help schools wrestling with the issue.
“We’re talking about kids, and anybody who’s been in school, been in high school, who’s been a parent, I think should realize that kids who are sometimes in the minority — kids who have a different sexual orientation or are transgender — are subject to a lot of bullying, potentially they are vulnerable,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. “I think that it is part of our obligation as a society to make sure that everybody is treated fairly, and our kids are all loved, and that they’re protected and that their dignity is affirmed.”
The White House has said little about Mr. Obama’s role in the release of the guidance, which had been under development for months, other than to say that he had been kept apprised of its progress and that it was broadly consistent with his values. It has drawn condemnations from many Republican lawmakers who call it an example of presidential overreach.
Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, said on Monday that the guidance violated the principle of separation of powers, and state officials there have signaled that they will seek to challenge it in court.
“The president is turning the Constitution on its head,” Mr. Abbott told Fox News. “He’s trying to cram down as many parts of his liberal agenda on the United States of America as he possibly can” before leaving office in January.
The clash comes as the Obama administration is battling North Carolina over a law that says transgender people must use restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to their sex at birth. The Justice Department sued the state this month, arguing that the law is discriminatory.
“There’s no denying that there has been a significant uptick in public consideration of these kinds of questions” because of North Carolina’s measure, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said on Monday, before the president’s comments were published online.
“The White House was not just aware of these policy deliberations but in the loop as the decisions were being made to ensure that the guidance reflected the president’s values and the president’s preferences,” he added.
Mr. Obama said he would not comment on the North Carolina suit, to avoid intervening in a pending case. But he said that he expected the courts to eventually resolve the issue of how schools should treat transgender students, and that, in the meantime, his administration wanted to respond to inquiries from schools on how to proceed.
“We said, ‘It is our view that you should try to treat these kids with dignity,’ ” Mr. Obama said, adding that the administration had sought to help educators and administrators by including a set of “best practices” from school districts that have enacted similar transgender policies. “There are school districts who have been wrestling with this problem and have, we think, done a good job in accommodating them in a way that is good for everybody, and so you can learn from these best practices. This is what we are advising.”
But the directive represents more than just a suggestion. While it does not carry the force of law, it signals how the administration interprets federal statutes, bringing with it an implied threat that schools that act otherwise could lose federal funding.
“Ultimately, depending on how these other lawsuits go, courts will affirm or reject how we see the issue,” Mr. Obama said.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio