The State Department (as in, the TRUMP State Department) is in the process of conducting an internal review of security protocols that were violated in the handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails. The review isn’t yet complete, but they’ve just released a progress report that shows quite a number of security violations.
So far, they’ve written up 15 people for breaking the rules. We don’t know who they are, because the Department itself would be breaking a rule by publicly naming them. I can think of several off the top of my head who are almost certainly included, but a number as high as 15 means there are more people involved than we knew about. Some of them –- I’m assuming the ones who are still working there; that’s an unknown number –- got write-ups placed in their security files, and it was reported that this could affect their ability to get security clearances in the future. Goodness, one would hope so.
(My thought is, what in blazes does it take to get one’s security clearance REVOKED? We’ve seen some pretty egregious behavior from former officials that, as far as I know, still hasn’t resulted in this.)
So far, the State Department has found 23 violations and 7 infractions of security protocols related to Hillary’s emails. In a letter to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, said, “The department considers any violation of security policies to be a serious matter.” Well, maybe it does NOW. I’m not sure it did while Hillary was Secretary of State.
Clinton herself, by doing State Department business with a personal account tied to a server she kept at her Chappaqua, New York, home, “broke government rules and risked national security, according to multiple investigations,” as reported Tuesday by the Washington Times. No kidding. On the other hand, I’m not so sure I agree with the Times’ assessment that James Comey concluded in 2016 that “Mrs. Clinton was too ignorant of the risks to be able to be charged.” If memory serves, Comey talked about intent –- though intent had nothing to do with whether or not she broke the law –- but not specifically about ignorance on her part. Even if, hypothetically, prosecutors did have to show intent (again, they don’t), it seems self-evident that Hillary was quite deliberate in her choice to skirt the law. Plenty of reasonable prosecutors would have taken that case.
And the idea that Hillary, an attorney herself, was ignorant of what she was doing is laughable; it’s simply that she thinks the rules were made for us lesser mortals to follow and don’t apply to her. Plus, these weren’t simply rules (as in, internal guidelines and policies). She clearly broke LAWS, such as the Espionage Act, to name one.