Houston Chronicle

Report on emails criticizes Clinton

- By Steven Lee Myers and Eric Lichtblau

WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general on Wednesday sharply criticized Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, saying she had not sought permission to use it and would not have received it if she had.

The report, delivered to members of Congress, undermined some of Clinton’s previous statements defending her use of the server and handed her Republican critics, including the party’s presumptiv­e nominee for president, Donald

Trump, new fodder to attack her just as she closes in on the Democratic nomination.

The inspector general found that Clinton “had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business” with department officials but that, contrary to her claims that the department “allowed” the arrangemen­t, there was “no evidence” she had requested or received approval for it.

And while other senior officials had used personal email accounts for official business, including Colin Powell when he was secretary, the rules made clear by the time she became the nation’s top diplomat that using a private server for official business was neither allowed nor encouraged because of “significan­t security risks.”

Clinton’s use of a private server was known by some officials beyond her closest aides, but no one in the State Department told her directly to use the department’s official email. When two officials in the record-keeping division raised concerns in 2010, their superior “instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again,” the report said.

The report, as well as an FBI investigat­ion and other legal challenges seeking informatio­n about her emails, is certain to keep alive a controvers­y that has shadowed Clinton’s campaign.

Clinton and her aides have played down the inquiries, saying that she would cooperate with investigat­ors to put the email issue behind her. Even so, she declined to be interviewe­d by the inspector general, Steve Linick, or his staff, as part of his review. So did several of her senior aides. Campaign responds

A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, Brian Fallon, did not respond to a request for comment about her refusal, among other questions. In a written statement, he said that the report showed that her use of a private email account was “not unique,” citing the use of personal emails by some of her predecesso­rs. “She took steps that went much further than others to appropriat­ely preserve and release her records,” the statement said.

In an already tumultuous, highly polarizing election season, the reaction to the findings broke predictabl­y along partisan lines. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democratic supporter of Clinton, said the findings revealed “nothing new.” Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., who previously criticized the inspector general’s office as politicize­d, called the report a “hatchet job.”

Trump, who has waged an often brutal attack on Clinton’s character and honesty, said in a telephone interview that the findings reflected a pattern of dishonesty. “She’s always looking for an edge and always getting caught,” he said.

The 79-page report added considerab­le new detail about the former secretary of state’s use of the server, as well as her motivation for setting it up. Clinton has publicly said the arrangemen­t was a matter of convenienc­e, but emails disclosed in the report made it clear that she worried that personal emails could be publicly released under the Freedom of Informatio­n Act. Clinton declined to change

In November 2010, her deputy chief of staff for operations prodded her about “putting you on State email” to protect her email from spam. Clinton declined. She replied that while she would consider using a separate address or device, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

The report did not delve deeply into the issue that has become the focus of the FBI’s investigat­ion — the references in dozens of emails to classified informatio­n, including 22 emails that the CIA claimed contained informatio­n on programs or sources that were “top secret.” It nonetheles­s called into question the risks of using a private system for what were clearly sensitive discussion­s of the nation’s foreign policy.

It noted that Clinton sent or received most of the emails that traversed her server from a mobile device, her BlackBerry. Department officials told the inspector general’s office that “Secretary Clinton never demonstrat­ed to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum informatio­n security requiremen­ts,” the report said.

The report also criticized Clinton for not adhering to the department’s rules for handling records under the Federal Records Act once she stepped down in January 2013. She only did so in late 2014, when the State Department, under pressure from Republican­s in Congress investigat­ing the 2011 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, requested that she turn them over.

It was only then that Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.

“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,” the report said. Effort was ‘incomplete’

While acknowledg­ing that Clinton had ultimately complied with requests to turn over the emails, the report determined that the effort was “incomplete.” Investigat­ors found that she had not included those she sent and received in her first months as secretary from January to April 2009.

Last year, the Department of Defense also turned over 19 emails between Clinton and then-Gen. David Petraeus that had been sent from his official email account to her private account but had not been included among those turned over.

The report broadly criticized the State Department as well, saying that officials had been “slow to recognize and to manage effectivel­y the legal requiremen­ts and cybersecur­ity risks” that emerged in the era of emails, particular­ly those of senior officials like Clinton.

It said that “long-standing systemic weaknesses” in handling electronic records went “well beyond the tenure of any one secretary of state.”

 ?? Richard Perry / New York Times ??
Richard Perry / New York Times

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States