We have a serious issue here that needs to be discussed: Is America willing to support a candidate who, with all due consideration of the facts, lied. Broke the law, violated the Federal Records Act.
Now that you know that Hillary Clinton has broken all the rules on national security, will you vote for her, America?
Hillary Clinton has broken all the rules. The IG knows it, she knows it and now the American public knows it. The State Department’s Inspector General concluded that Hillary Clinton’s private email server did not comply with the Department’s policies.
The problem is, Hillary keeps defending her actions in the face of the IG report. Her campaign, with an almost comedic abandon, writes off the findings of the investigation as partisan, cooked, and unsubstantial. Now, the armies of spin doctors are working 24/7 to make the American public believe her.
But let me ask you, America, are you willing to support someone who broke all the rules just because she was in a position to do so? Does experience right the wrongs of systemic disregard? How many other rules did she break that we don’t ever know about?
The media loves to discourse about Hillary’s flattering delegate count or the danger of Trump becoming President. But what ever happened to scrutinizing the record of our public officials? What about determining whether our leaders, whom we entrust to carry out the most sacred duty of public service, advancing the public good, are doing their jobs? American voters cannot allow the White House to become another season of House of Cards.
We have a serious issue here that needs to be discussed: Is America willing to support a candidate who, with all due consideration of the facts, lied. Broke the law, violated the Federal Records Act. While it is true that the Federal Records Act was passed in 2015, after she left the State Department, it does not change the fact that throughout her tenure she was lacking full transparency in regard to national security and respect for the policy of the Department she was the part of.
IG report identified three cases where officials used non-Departmental systems on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations. These included former Secretaries Powell and Clinton, as well as Jonathan Scott Gration, a former Ambassador to Kenya.
I do not care if Hillary says that Colin Powell did the same, or any of her predecessors. They never ran for President. Second, they never held private servers. But third, we want a President who won’t rewrite the rules out of selfishness.
We don’t elect our presidents to do things out of convenience. We elect them to do the job. We elect them to follow the rules and enforce them consistently on every societal level.
The fundamental question here is not : Was Hillary allowed to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience? The question of even more concern based on the findings of Inspector General is which rules of national security did she break after she set up the private server. That, America, is an issue.
All this time, Clinton is trying to shift the conversation about the legality of using private email but even if this set up of the private server would have been perfectly legal Clinton did not show any care for the cyber security risks facing the Department and America at large.
During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM.
However, 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
…….Secretary Clinton never demonstrated….. that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.” (IG report, p.37)
What basically happened here is that Hillary Clinton did whatever she please despite the cyber security protocol. That’s irresponsible.
If she has done something like that in a role of the State Secretary, can you imagine what she would be able to do in the more powerful role of the President?
Some analysts are only able to concede that this was an “error in judgment.” But that is not the prima facie issue here. The issue here is how much bad judgment America can afford? And not just from Hillary, but every public official.
Clinton is trying to persuade voters she is trustworthy but is she really?
For many years, Hillary was my role model. A brilliant woman who once discarded her own dreams in order to follow her husband’s career. Last summer I wrote a column reflecting on the same issue my generation of women had to struggle with.
However, turning the blind eye to Hillary breaking the public trust would be like denying that a family member has an addiction problem. Denial neither serves Hillary nor the public good.
Hillary’s private server was under attack, but she failed to report it
The skill of introspection is important for a public leader, but Hillary does not seem to hold this ability in high regard. She lives in a state of denial, and by not raising the issue we are enabling an abuse of public trust.
Hillary is prudently waiting for the story to blow over. She knows quite well that the media is more hungry for stories on Trump’s latest incident of bombast than her rather lengthy tango with national security.
The fact is, even if the email server was not an issue, Hillary failed to report the hack of her private server.
In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website.
The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!”
Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007).
Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008).
However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department. (IG report p.40)
Any hacking attempts are the matter of national security
I don’t care how good of a spin doctor you are, but let’s not minimize the issue. Any hacking attempts are the matter of national security and should have been reported in compliance with the rules of the US State Department. Period. The Secretary of the State must know and respect that.
If we are supposed to elect the best of us to represent us, aren’t those the values we want in our leader? Hillary was not supposed to set up the exception to her own rules, but rather lead by example. That means bearing the inconvenience of having two separate email accounts, the same way many politicians and public servants do worldwide. And yes, most of them follow the rules.
The story about the IG report and Hillary’s misuse of public trust should be roiling the 2016 presidential elections, but somehow all we talk about is Donald Trump. Just because something —as Hillary once said regarding her emails —at the time did not seem to be an issue, it does not mean it is not an issue in the here and now.
Hillary Clinton should step out of the presidential race
The Clinton family has broken many rules, such as Bill Clinton’s sexual encounter in the premises of the White House with a subordinate 22-year-old intern, which he somehow managed to get away with.
Monica was brutalized by the media, and Bill went on to serve, reaping the benefits of a thriving economy propelled by an ever-more-dynamic technological industry.
Hillary lost me. She may win enough delegates to be nominated, but it is the American voter, the Independent, the Republic, the average Joe who will have the final say in the General. It’s your call, America.
Now that you know that Hillary Clinton has broken not only rules on national security, but of the sacrosanct pillar of the public trust, will you vote for her?
You can read the full IG report via this link