Posted on 08/25/2015 3:53:00 PM PDT by george76
Ambassador Caroline Kennedy was singled out by the State Department's watchdog for using a personal email account to conduct official business.
Kennedy, who has served as the U.S. ambassador to Japan since 2013, "used personal email accounts to send and receive messages containing official business," according to a State Department inspector general report made public Tuesday.
Other senior embassy staff also used personal email accounts to handle government communications, occasionally transmitting information marked "sensitive but unclassified" on commercial accounts ...
The embassy in Tokyo has no records management policy, nor does it enforce federal regulations that dictate how federal records should be handled.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Why?
They're not exempt from the laws of the United States of America, are they?
The government demands we follow the law, and if we do not they can arrest and convict us. The law should apply to all citizens, and not exempt royalty like Clinton, and Kennedys
PRIVATE EMAILS and this goes to the TOP, people.
Obama only hires airheads, as they are easy to control.
If Caroline did it it must be ok
What is this with Democrats with a liberal leaning not using the official department communications? Are they afraid that if they leave office, for any reason, the contents of their official files will somehow become a way of feeding their opposition?
And why would they ever think their personal network server is somehow more secure than the government servers? Do they know something the rest of us don’t?
There was once a joke about the security classification system - that the classification was so high, only the enemy would ever have opportunity to read it...
This is a real insult to Hillary. To be lumped in with Caroline Kennedy behavior (who is known to be incoherently dumb) is no compliment to the “smartest woman in the world”.
So, these B*TCHES all using private emails is just a coincidence? Noooooooo way.
Giving out crony ambassadorships to totally unqualified political allies is horrendously bad diplomacy.
Politico has a good writeup about it, you can go there and search to read all of it:
The mission in Japan is implementing all the recommendations, including the recommendations with respect to email traffic, "as we speak," Kirby said. "They've taken the recommendations very seriously."
I’m curious . . . does this descendant of a rather disgusting family even know how to speak Japanese?
Democrat..Progressive...Kennedy....Unexpected?
Funny how no one has asked how Caroline Kennedy fit into all that. It would have been a great question at a presidential press conference.
Wouldn’t it be nice to discover where Hillary’s emails to zero were sent?
You make a good point about this going to the top.
So will Caroline and Hillary be sharing a cell?
Basically, Democrats - at least the crop we have at present - believe that any opposition to their will is immoral and therefore should be illegal.
If they can make illegal by legislative action, they will. If they cannot make it explicitly illegal, they will simply refuse to follow the law, because (see above) anything that opposes them or even inconveniences them is immoral.
Typically, friends in the executive branch or in the judicial branch will look the other way whilst they do this, and everything comes out fine.
It's kind of like what happened when a brand-new YMCA branch opened in our town. One of the first things they did was to try to put out of business every competing charity in about a six-mile radius.
They did this with the greatest confidence. Their attitude was "what you did was fine, but you're not needed any more."
I believe their reasoning goes as follows: the charity "pie" is only so big, there's only so much charity work and charity funding available in a region.
The YMCA believes that - because it is an arm of the United Way - it is ipso facto the most efficient and effective charity imaginable. Therefore, any other charities are (by definition) less efficient, and - following from that - represent a misuse of charitable resources simply as a result of their existence.
For this reason, the YMCA is justified in putting them out of business by any means necessary, for the greater good.
I believe the Democrats think just like this about their own purposes and goals when compared with those of anyone else, particularly their opposition.
I also believe they would put we the opposition in cattle cars instantly if they could, and they would feel completely justified in doing so. Just as they do with Planned Butchery.
Not picking on you, just Politico...
Ah, I see, “recommendations”!
So, the IRS “Recommends” I pay my taxes, right?
And the police “recommend” I do not rob liquor stores?
I love how laws and regulations or higher-up government officials are recommendations.
The problem with this is that SECURITY LAWS are not EVER recommendations, they are US Code 10 laws, and violators are punishable, 10 years in jail, $10,000 fine.
I used to teach government communications and computer security regulations, and those were never recommendations—just law.
Really -- there is no need to even pose the question.
Have you ever heard her attempt to speak English?
The American Embassy in Japan is being run by a moron.
And I'm sure all of our embassies are leaking secrets to whomever wants to listen. The USA diplomatic corp are Obama and his Democrats' hand picked idiots.
I'll give Caroline the benefit of the doubt; maybe I shouldn't. They are scrambling to follow recommendations that they follow the applicable laws and regs although it really didn't say that.
I had experience with classified documents and followed what I understood were laws and regs to the last detail.
I will say this though. Everyone I worked with, high and low, took it all along with OUO very seriously. Anyone who leaked information prior to the public announcement was promptly fired. I only knew of one instance of that.
Ah...you have reminded me of what was once called "The Rule of Law." It held that everyone was bound to follow the Law, the Law was applied to all men equally, and that it was just as binding on the government as the citizen. It also held that the individual rights of Man were given by God as a power higher than the state, and those rights could not be lawfully taken by the State. The Founding Fathers of this country were familiar with The Rule of Law, and risked their lives in freeing themselves of what had become an oppressive foreign monarchy in order that it might be followed here.
Yes, the Rule of Law. A quaint notion; of course it is quite dead now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.