State Department Inspector General Finds Hillary Clinton Violated Recordkeeping Rules

The IG also says Clinton and her top aides did not cooperate with its investigation.

Joe Skipper/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The State Department’s Inspector General has determined that Hillary Clinton violated agency policies on record-keeping, according to a report it released to lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

The report—which was first reported by Politico—concludes that Clinton’s use of a private email server broke rules that exist to comply with the Federal Records Act.

“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. “At a minimum, 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 IG report also notes that Clinton and her top aides did not cooperate with the investigation. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for a comment.

In addition to criticizing Clinton’s email practices, the report also faults the State Department for “longstanding, systemic weaknesses” concerning records that “go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.” That line of reasoning was reflected in a tweet from Brian Fallon, one of the Clinton campaign’s spokesmen:

While the report mentioned “many examples of staff using personal email accounts to conduct official business,” it singled out two people, in addition to Clinton, for using non-department systems on an “exclusive basis for day-to-day operations”: former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Ambassador to Kenya Jonathan Scott Gration, who served from mid-2011 through mid-2012.

The report notes that the circumstances of each case are different. During Powell’s State Department tenure, for instance, the email system only allowed for inter-department communication. He therefore requested a system so he could communicate with people outside of the State Department.

However, it is not clear whether staff explicitly addressed restrictions on the use of non-Departmental systems with Secretary Powell,” the report states. It notes that agency officials thought they were complying with all relevant security requirements, but “information security were very fluid” during Powell’s years at the State Deparment and the agency wasn’t aware of “magnitude of the security risks associated with information technology.”

By the time Clinton became Secretary of State, the agency’s understanding and practices were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” the report states. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”

The report says that there’s no evidence Clinton ever requested or received approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. Had she requested permission, according to the IG report, she wouldn’t have received it. Two State Department staffers in the office of the executive secretariat—the people within State who coordinate the agency’s work internally—told the IG’s investigators that they discussed their concerns about the use of a personal email account with their boss.

“According to [one] staff member, the [boss] stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further,” the report states, adding that there’s no evidence that the agency’s internal legal office reviewed or approved the arrangement.

The report notes that the other employee who raised concerns was told to “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

The other official singled out in the report, Ambassador Gration, wanted to use a commercial email systems for daily business. State Department security officials warned him against doing so, but Gration insisted on doing it anyway. “The Department subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against him…but he resigned before any disciplinary measures were imposed.”

Read the full report below:

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate