XPost: rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, a   
   t.vietnam.veterans   
   XPost: soc.culture.soviet   
   From: multiple.felonies@hillaryclinton.com   
      
   Hillary Clinton’s awkward intransigence in the face of an   
   unrelenting e-mail scandal is playing out under the harsh media   
   spotlight of a presidential campaign. Garnering less attention   
   is the intransigence of a former Clinton colleague at Foggy   
   Bottom, who appears to be leading an effort to shield her   
   potentially classified e-mails from further scrutiny by the   
   intelligence community.   
      
   He is Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, and for weeks now   
   he has denied the intelligence community inspector general (IG)   
   access to Clinton’s e-mails, while substantially limiting the   
   access granted to the State Department’s own IG. He’s also   
   ignored official guidance from both IGs on how his department   
   can improve its classification-review process and catch   
   sensitive material before it’s publicly released.   
      
   Kennedy’s ongoing resistance is the latest skirmish in a three-   
   month battle between the State Department and the two federal   
   watchdogs over how many of Clinton’s e-mails contain classified   
   information. Since June, the department has pushed back   
   forcefully against the IGs’ repeated warnings that reams of   
   classified material sat on Clinton’s private server. A   
   preliminary probe by the IGs in June found that State Department   
   attorneys had overruled findings by their subordinates that some   
   of the e-mails contained national-security secrets. Without   
   sustained pressure from both IGs — and two bombshell   
   announcements the watchdogs made on July 23 and August 11 — the   
   public would likely still be unaware that classified materials   
   were found in e-mails on the server, that these materials were   
   classified at the time of their sending, and that in at least   
   two cases these materials were Top Secret.   
      
   Even now, Kennedy and State Department management continue to   
   drag their feet — quibbling over whether the information   
   contained in the e-mails was classified retroactively and   
   refusing to confirm the Top Secret designation of the two e-   
   mails found by the intelligence community. A spokeswoman for   
   intelligence community IG I. Charles McCullough tells National   
   Review that McCullough “has had no further communications from   
   Undersecretary Kennedy since he declined [on July 24] to   
   implement two out of four recommendations and denied our office   
   any further access to the 30,000 e-mails.” (The State Department   
   did not respond to a request for comment.) To some, the dispute   
   is little more than a federal turf war, albeit one waged on a   
   highly visible battleground. But congressional investigators   
   continue to worry that unless intelligence reviewers are better   
   integrated into the process, the public may never know the   
   quantity and importance of the classified information exposed by   
   Clinton’s use of a private server.   
      
   The dispute began in early June after State Department inspector   
   general Steve Linick was directed by Congress to investigate the   
   State Department’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) review of   
   approximately 30,000 government e-mails stored on Clinton’s   
   private server. Linick invited McCullough to provide outside   
   help from the intelligence community, and the two IGs launched a   
   dual inquiry into the State Department’s efforts to determine   
   how many of Clinton’s e-mails contained classified information.   
      
   Both IGs expressed alarm at State’s use of retired Foreign   
   Service officers rather than intelligence officers to review   
   Clinton’s communications; at the department’s storage of the e-   
   mails on a system that wasn’t designed to safeguard “Top Secret”   
   information; and, especially, at the apparent reversal of at   
   least four findings of classified material by the department’s   
   lawyers. They recommended that State include FOIA specialists   
   from several intelligence agencies in the review process; that   
   it have intelligence personnel review the system on which the e-   
   mails are being stored while they’re reviewed to ensure that it   
   is secure enough to house Top Secret materials; and that it   
   allow the intelligence community to act as the “final arbiter”   
   on classification questions.   
      
   Kennedy rebuffed their requests. “The Department finds the   
   issues raised by the ICIG are either already addressed in   
   current processes or are inconsistent with interagency   
   practices,” he wrote, according to a series of memos later   
   published by Linick. One ex–State Department official says   
   Kennedy was right to stand his ground. “The State Department is   
   not going to want another agency to start reviewing all its e-   
   mails and go, ‘Oh, this should’ve been classified, and that   
   should’ve been classified,’” he says. “That seems like a   
   dangerous precedent to set.”   
      
   Others find the pushback unfortunate, particularly since   
   McCullough’s inquiry was sanctioned by the State Department’s   
   own inspector general. “If their own IG agrees with the IG of   
   the intelligence community, then [State] needs to take it up   
   with their own IG,” says a former general counsel to a federal   
   inspector general.   
      
   Kennedy relented on one issue as Linick and McCullough unearthed   
   more evidence. In a June 29 letter they said department staff   
   had found “hundreds of potentially classified e-mails,” and that   
   there was concern the sensitive information could be publicly   
   released. “Under the circumstances, we continue to urge the   
   Department to adopt the recommendations made by the IC IG in our   
   June 19 memorandum,” they wrote.   
      
   Kennedy responded on July 14, indicating he was “making   
   arrangements” with the intelligence community to allow their   
   FOIA reviewers to join the State Department team tasked with   
   combing through the e-mails. But he continued to resist the   
   remaining recommendations, and the inspectors general sent a   
   curt response letter two days later, informing Kennedy they   
   considered the other two recommendations “unresolved.” “There   
   are clearly some raw nerves between these two programs,” says a   
   senior security policy official. “The State Department,   
   institutionally, feels that it does not fall under the oversight   
   of intelligence community elements. For it to be perceived as   
   being criticized, or being directed by, an intelligence   
   community authority — that rubs them the wrong way.”   
      
   The tussle between the two institutions went public soon after   
   Kennedy’s final refusal. On July 23, McCullough released a   
   statement explaining that reviewers from his office had found   
   four e-mails containing classified information in a mere 40 e-   
   mail sample. The news contradicted Clinton’s earlier contention   
   that she had never sent or received classified information over   
   her private server, putting her presidential campaign on the   
   defensive in the press. McCullough also asked the State   
   Department to provide him and Linick with copies of all 30,000 e-   
   mails in order to perform further sampling for classified   
   material. But while the department agreed to provide Linick with   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)