This was my point from the last post. I was prompted by the latest news stories in the international press about Secretary Clinton’s emails containing top secret material not being released.
Obviously, in releasing a report from the Acting Inspector General focused on criticizing Ambassador Gration’s email security and public records compliance in mid-2012 coinciding with the Ambassador’s resignation, the State Department was surely “blowing smoke”. Plenty of people involved in this, aside from the Secretary of State and the President, must have known that the Secretary herself was using an insecure, “off the public record” system for her own official emails.
Did the Acting Inspector General know? If not, shouldn’t someone have told him?
I don’t know Ambassador Gration and was not in Kenya during his tenure and have no opinions or personal knowledge about the backstory (but will note that someone at the State Department bothered to mention a day ahead of time that the OIG’s report was coming out and the Ambassador was leaving). Likewise, I am uncommitted and unaffiliated regarding the U.S. presidential race. My interest here is that this is a foreign policy and public records issue regarding Kenya.
See: Hillary Clinton, Scott Gration and “public-private” email at the State Department
Excellent clarification and reminder of the larger issue involving freedom of information and future access to historically significant documents as provided for in United States laws. Unofficial or parallel internet systems used to the exclusion of what is already provided and required seem to indicate that the user wanted to avoid leaving any historical record for examination; beyond this politically nuanced view is the reality that legitimately classified information may have been compromised by users who should have known better and who should have known much better.
Thanks, Andrew!