Burn Bag: Embarrassed by Hillary Server Scandal (*/_⧹) Not Enough Facepalms

Via Burn Bag:

“I understand most in our profession are admirers of Hillary, but the lack of response from the Department on this e-mail issue is a disgrace.  A Cabinet-level official and her top aides completely disregard IT security policies for 4 years, and we’re not even recognizing how badly we failed?  How many in the Executive Secretariat knew about this?  Short of formal reprimands, have we at least said this must never happen again?  Maybe a FAM amendment explicitly forbidding senior officials from doing this?”

via reactiongifs.com

via reactiongifs.com


2 responses

  1. I recently e-mailed to Chris Cillizza:

    “I honestly don’t understand why the staff of The Washington Post, of all papers, write as if they don’t understand what classified USG information is, or what the rules are for properly reviewing, classifying, marking, and disseminating it.
    Why has every misleading, obfuscatory statement by former Secretary Clinton been printed without the Post pointing out that it is either patently incorrect or nonsensical?
    Information is rarely if ever “unclassified at the time….” The contents of her e-mails are more correctly described as information that has not yet been properly reviewed for sensitivity, or that has not yet been properly marked, and which was not properly disseminated in controlled channels. Both failure to review and failure to mark are security violations in and of themselves.
    I shouldn’t have to add this, but I’m a relatively left-wing Democrat, not one of the “hate Hillary Republicans”. But I spent 40 years in the Federal Government handling classified information, and if I’d done as she had, I’d have been fired or imprisoned.”