Oh my: State Department forced out ambassador in 2012 partly for ... using private e-mail for official business

A nifty catch by Cuffy Meigs, amplified by Mark Hemingway at the Weekly Standard. Piss-poor security practices weren’t the only reason Scott Gration got dumped as ambassador to Nairobi — the list of grievances in the executive summary of State’s 2012 report on the embassy is long — but that’s beside the point. Hillary’s chief defense is that there’s really nothing wrong with conducting state business on commercial platforms so long as all of the records end up in the feds’ archives, which, she claims, they did. Eventually. Even though no one believes her.

Her own State Department disagrees.


Strikingly similar to what Hillary did. He used commercial e-mail for official business himself, he made it possible for other State employees to do so, and when the IT department complained, he ignored them. In fact, Hillary apparently behaved even worse than Gration: Not only was her private e-mail server less secure than State’s IT infrastructure, it was insecure even by the standards of other private servers.

Per Sean Davis, in another part of the report State’s inspector general cited Gration’s loose cannon e-mail habits as among his “greatest weaknesses”:


Clear as a bell. The federal government’s directives on using official e-mail only, especially for officers handling sensitive information, are “clear-cut” to the point that doing otherwise constitutes the “opposite” of doing the right thing. Where does Hillaryworld’s spin go from here? If “she did nothing wrong” is now moot per the official findings of her own former agency, what’s the back-up spin? “Okay, she shouldn’t have done it, but she had a very good reason”? What possible reason could there be apart from her wanting to avoid accountability that other cabinet officers routinely comply with?