Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riversedge

(70,259 posts)
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:46 PM May 2016

Forbes: State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her




May 25, 2016 @ 01:34 PM 5,407 views

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her


http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/05/25/state-department-report-on-email-vindicates-clinton-rather-than-nails-her/#597d62512c7d

Charles Tiefer ,

Contributor

I cover government contracting, the Pentagon and Congress.



The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.

It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton addresses supporters at the IBEW Local 11 union hall during a campaign event in the city of Commerce, outside of Los Angeles, Tuesday. (ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton. In other words, the report does not, and cannot, talk about the most serious issues. It is about a sideshow. If you are serious about the email charges against Hillary, you should keep your powder dry until at least Clinton is interviewed by the FBI in a matter of weeks, and then until the result of that probe is released.

Moreover, it is no accident that this report does not deal with the most serious issues: The FBI expressly told the State Department IG to stay away from classified records. That would have involved the State Department IG interfering with and possibly foreshadowing the FBI criminal investigation. But, this meant the FBI left the State Department IG with a subject involving much less grounds for potential criticism of Clinton, as we see in this report.
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Forbes: State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her (Original Post) riversedge May 2016 OP
This argument makes no sense, quite frankly. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #1
"no new charges" NCTraveler May 2016 #3
Not my language, it is Tiefer's choice. He says "It does not add any new serious charges..." JonLeibowitz May 2016 #4
It must be dreamy in your world farleftlib May 2016 #2
Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her workinclasszero May 2016 #5
Not Surprised pmorlan1 May 2016 #6
Maybe he knows a witch hunt when he sees one. TwilightZone May 2016 #10
You're free to believe whatever you want pmorlan1 May 2016 #11
Yes, she broke Federal Records law. Therefore she is vindicated. mmonk May 2016 #7
Where does it say she broke "Federal Records law"? TwilightZone May 2016 #9
Whoops. You're right. It doesn't. nt COLGATE4 May 2016 #13
She did not comply with the Federal Records Act. mmonk May 2016 #17
Guilty until proven innocent? Sure, why not. TwilightZone May 2016 #18
Prima facie. mmonk May 2016 #19
From Forbes, no less. TwilightZone May 2016 #8
It was an opinion piece pmorlan1 May 2016 #12
Oh, my word. Not a Democratic ally! TwilightZone May 2016 #14
I'm a Democrat Too pmorlan1 May 2016 #15
Yes indeed, damn those Democrats NastyRiffraff May 2016 #20
Who said anything about not listening to them? pmorlan1 May 2016 #21
This place is ridiculous right now! Stuckinthebush May 2016 #16
It's Forbes. kstewart33 May 2016 #22
You might want to read the damn report nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #23

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
1. This argument makes no sense, quite frankly.
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:49 PM
May 2016

You cannot (honestly, anyway) simultaneously argue the two following points:

(1) The State IG vindicates Clinton because it adds no new charges or evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

(2) The State IG was told by the FBI to stay away from classified info, and therefore did stay away from these topics

The column frankly is self-contradictory, though very amusing.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
4. Not my language, it is Tiefer's choice. He says "It does not add any new serious charges..."
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:55 PM
May 2016

or adverse facts."

Perhaps you could ask him?

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
2. It must be dreamy in your world
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:51 PM
May 2016

Not only is she guilty but the cover-up story is starting to crumble. She refuses to talk to anybody and her aides are getting immunity in exchange for their testimony.

Nope, nothing to see here...these are not the droids you're looking for....

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
6. Not Surprised
Wed May 25, 2016, 06:03 PM
May 2016

Professor Charles Tiefer has been defending her in the pages of Forbes on the FBI investigation, the FOIA lawsuits and now the State Dept. report since the beginning. I'm really not surprised considering his ties to the Democratic Party.

Professor Charles Tiefer, Commissioner, Commission on Wartime Contracting

Professor Tiefer was chief litigator for the House of Representatives and was a courtroom advocate in numerous major cases. He served in 1996 as deputy minority counsel of the U.S. House “Bosniagate” investigating sub-committee and in 1987 as the Special Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Iran-Contra Committee. Professor Tiefer has had extensive immersion in investigative processes on diverse issues, including oversight investigations of foreign affairs and government contracting. He was appointed to his current role by Senator Harry Reid.


https://oversight.house.gov/release/operation-fast-and-furious-hearing-to-be-held-june-13th/

She will of course have people advocating for her in the media. This is to be expected. Bill Clinton likewise had lawyers and others advocating for him in the media during the Lewinsky non-stop media coverage.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
11. You're free to believe whatever you want
Wed May 25, 2016, 06:37 PM
May 2016

I was just pointing out what is pretty obvious. I just saw on CBS where Fallon was spinning this way too.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
17. She did not comply with the Federal Records Act.
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:02 PM
May 2016

Therefore that would be the default position. Now why that law is currently toothless, it doesn't vindicate her (obviously). Only the FBI will determine if she is vindicated from any serious charge.

TwilightZone

(25,472 posts)
18. Guilty until proven innocent? Sure, why not.
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:07 PM
May 2016

If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you should probably just not post so that you don't look silly.

TwilightZone

(25,472 posts)
14. Oh, my word. Not a Democratic ally!
Wed May 25, 2016, 06:48 PM
May 2016

Oh, the horror!! I mean, Democrats? Shit, we don't want to source anything that might have anything to do with Democrats. That would be...undemocratic or something. Fuckin' Democrats.

We better rush right back over to Fox News, the Blaze, the Daily Caller, the National Review, and the Washington Free Beacon to get our spin, since all of those are now legitimate sources on DU per the community and have all provided fodder for this story in just the past few days.

This place just keeps getting funnier.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
15. I'm a Democrat Too
Wed May 25, 2016, 06:54 PM
May 2016

I know this is a tough day for you. I know because I went through something very similar with Bill Clinton. I thought it was Bill's enemies who were lying about Lewinsky when in reality it was Bill who was lying. I too defended the spin coming from the Clinton WH. When we finally found out the truth I was devastated and felt really stupid. I still continued to defend him after that because of Ken Starr and the rest of the Republicans who I saw on my TV screen night after night. I still despise those Republicans but I stopped defending the Clinton spin. I just won't do that anymore.

NastyRiffraff

(12,448 posts)
20. Yes indeed, damn those Democrats
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:59 PM
May 2016

who have the nerve to point out actual, you know, facts. We shouldn't listen to them because they're Democrats!

What the hell happened to Democratic Underground? Washington Times, Breitbart, Fox News,etc: okay. Anyone who's a Democrat: not okay. Yeah, right.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Forbes: State Departmen...