Category Archives: Clinton Fraud

Prepare for Biden, Kerry or even Bloomberg?

Posted on by

The Hillary camp is in full implosion and they are panicked over Bernie. There major ad buys in place in California where Hillary is trailing Sanders. If Sanders does win California….her camp officially breaks. But wait, there is more. There are at least 3 investigations going on in Hillary’s realm, the Foundation, Benghazi and lastly the email/server scandal.

So, the text messages are flying, the phone calls are burning the DC wires and meetings behind closed doors are underway…..now what? A hybrid brokered Democrat conventions? But there is a big push to remove the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

It is quite curious how Obama has maintained his distance in the Democrat election cycle.  Could there be a Sanders Warren ticket?

*****

Democratic pollster Doug Schoen has penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal predicting that Hillary Clinton could be denied the Democratic Party nomination if Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wins the June 7 California primary.

Breitbart: According to Schoen, a loss for Clinton would not only demonstrate her weakness as a national candidate, but could also turn the tide of opinion in the embattled Democratic National Convention and among wavering “superdelegates” — party bigwigs with an independent vote.

Specifically, Schoen argues, Sanders could seize the opportunity to change the convention rules to force superdelegates to cast their ballot for whichever candidate won their state. (In many states, Sanders won delegates at the ballot box, only to lose to Clinton overall because of her superdelegate lead.)

In addition, he says, Vice President Joe Biden may be eager to enter the fray.

Schoen writes:

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely…

Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.

(Read Schoen’s full article here.)

In addition, Schoen writes, Clinton faces increasing pressure from the FBI investigation into her personal e-mail server and apparent conflicts of interest involving her family foundation and her performance as Secretary of State.

****

Hillary and her team are in a panic and should be. California Governor Jerry Brown endorsed Hillary, but is that enough?

The Democratic front-runner changed her schedule for this week, canceling a Thursday event in New Jersey in order to be in California on the days leading up to next Tuesday’s election there. Polling last week showed a race that’s almost tied.

And on the republican side, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has released the names of the veteran’s charities he donated to after recent pressure from the media.

In addition to touting endorsements from the state’s Asian-American lawmakers, Clinton’s campaign is running targeted ads and conducting voter outreach in Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Korean.

Brown repeated Clinton’s claim that she has an insurmountable lead in the race to claim a majority of delegates to the Democrats’ convention in July.

In a written statement, the governor stopped just short of saying Sanders should step aside.

“For her part, Hillary Clinton has convincingly made the case that she knows how to get things done, and has the tenacity and skill to advance the Democratic agenda”, said Gov.

Obviously, the general election contest has only recently begun in earnest.

“Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country from day one”.

Even though she will likely secure the nomination in New Jersey, which also goes to the polls June 7, Clinton has banked on the support of non-white Americans. The Clintons strongly denounced the accusations.

But now Brown will be summarily dismissed like Tom Hayden, Dolores Huerta, Planned Parenthood, John Lewis, Barney Frank, and an ever-growing list of progressives who are written off as shills, sell-outs, know-nothings, and don’t-matters, all because they have chosen to support Hillary over Bernie. Brown and Bill Clinton fought an acrimonious presidential primary battle in 1992. Bernie Sanders, she often tried not to feed liberal suspicions that she is a hawk. “Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. Following a rally in Oakland on Monday, Sanders appeared in the stands at Oracle Arena to watch the Golden State Warriors complete their come-from-behind, Game 7 victory over the Oklahoma City Thunder in the Western Conference finals. However, that has not stopped Sanders’ campaign in California, even though he has acknowledged there is only a “narrow path” remaining for him to claim the party’s nomination. Because as our colleague Dante Chinni writes, the moment Sanders exits the race, her poll numbers against Trump will increase. More here.

Hillary Campaign Desperate Weekend Memo

Posted on by

Campaign Chairman: Clinton Knows Email Setup Was A “Mistake”

Buzzfeed: John Podesta sent hundreds of top Clinton supporters a memo over the weekend following the critical IG report on the former secretary of state’s email setup.

   

In a memo to top supporters, Hillary Clinton’s top official sought to clarify the campaign’s response to a new report from the State Department inspector general and move past a controversy that has dogged the candidate now for 15 months.

The 600-word letter from John Podesta, Clinton’s chairman and longtime adviser, addresses the IG report’s various findings, but comes back to a single point again and again: that Clinton knows the use of a personal email server was a “mistake.”

“And she has taken responsibility for that mistake,” Podesta wrote to several hundred of the campaign’s most active supporters and financial backers.

The memo, obtained by BuzzFeed News, went out by email over Memorial Day weekend, five days after the release of the highly critical IG report. The investigation, separate from an ongoing FBI inquiry, concluded that Clinton failed during her tenure as secretary of state to comply with record-keeping policies.

In the days after the IG’s findings became public, Clinton made appearances on four television networks to push back on the report as nothing new. “There may be reports that come out, but nothing has changed,” she said. “It’s the same story.”

(The IG report included some new details of how Clinton’s email arrangement was set up, including correspondence from within the State Department.)

The Podesta memo takes a more contrite posture, reminding backers three separate times that Clinton has called the email setup a mistake and continues to do so in the wake of the IG report. “The secretary has once again acknowledged this was a mistake,” Podesta writes. “If she could go back, she’d do it differently.”

Podesta also takes up one of the report’s key findings: that Clinton’s email practices did differ significantly from past secretaries of state, contrary to the candidate’s frequent argument that, broadly, her email use was not “unprecedented.”

Clinton used a non-government account to conduct State Department business, as did former secretary of state Colin Powell. But no other former secretary of state has maintained government correspondence on a private home-based server.

Although Clinton argued again in a Univision interview on Wednesday that her use of a personal account was “not at all unprecedented,” the memo from Podesta alludes to the distinct aspects of her arrangement. At the time, he writes, “she believed she was following the practices of other secretaries and senior officials.”

The IG report concluded that Clinton had an “obligation” to discuss such an arrangement with State Department officials, including for security reasons, but found “no evidence” that she “requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

The report came as an unwelcome development for Clinton’s campaign, just days before officials expect to clinch the Democratic nomination when polls close on June 7. The email scandal, dragging into its second year, has not helped Clinton fight the perception that she is untrustworthy or too often mired in controversy.

“We understand the questions about Secretary Clinton’s email practices,” Podesta writes in his memo. But, he adds, “voters will look at the full picture of everything she has done throughout her career. We have faith in the American people.”

Read the full memo below:

To: Interested Parties
From: John Podesta, Campaign Chair
Date: May 28, 2016

As Hillary Clinton nears the point where she will officially clinch the Democratic nomination for President, we intend to spend the coming months focused on the issues of greatest concern to the everyday lives of working families.However, we know that our opponents will continue to try to distract us with attacks, including on issues like Secretary Clinton’s use of personal email while at the State Department.

Since last year, Secretary Clinton has said her use of a personal email server was a mistake. And while there have been ongoing reviews of this matter, the completion of the Inspector General’s examination gets us one step closer to resolving this.

While the rules surrounding use of a personal email account were clarified after Secretary Clinton left office – and the Inspector General recommends the State Department take measures to even further clarify them – the Secretary has once again acknowledged this was a mistake. And she has taken responsibility for that mistake – including in many interviews she’s done since the report’s release.

What she thought would be a convenient way to communicate with family, friends and colleagues – by using one email account for both her work related and personal emails – has turned out to be anything but convenient. If she could go back, she’d do it differently.

Parts of the report underscore what Secretary Clinton has said all along about her email practices as Secretary of State. For instance, the report confirms Secretary Clinton’s email account was well-known by many State Department officials throughout her tenure, and there is no evidence of a breach of her email server.

Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them. She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials.

What has also been missed in a lot of the discussion is that the report brings to light the longstanding and systemic problems in the government’s electronic recordkeeping systems.

Secretary Clinton believed her emails to and from officials on their state.gov accounts were automatically captured and preserved in the State Department’s electronic system.

It was not until the Department contacted her in 2014 that she learned this was not the case. And since then, she has taken unprecedented steps to ensure public access to her emails — providing the Department with all of her work-related emails, totaling 55,000 pages, and calling for their release.

Secretary Clinton also agrees with the Inspector General’s recommendations that electronic recordkeeping practices and policies need to be upgraded. Printing out 55,000 pages of emails is not a good use of time or resources, nor should it be the standard for preserving records given technology available to us today.

There is a lot at stake in this election. This week Donald Trump officially clinched enough delegates to become the Republican nominee. That means an unqualified loose cannon is within reach of the most powerful job in the world.

While we understand the questions about Secretary Clinton’s email practices, we are confident that voters will look at the full picture of everything she has done throughout her career. We have faith in the American people. They know we have to be focused on solutions that will make a real difference in people’s lives.

Hillary Clinton will continue to dedicate her campaign to getting results on behalf of America’s working families. She rejects the strategy of pitting Americans against each other in favor of an approach that recognizes how much stronger we are when we come together. With your help, we will take that message across the country and earn a great victory this November.

Hillary’s People Bracing For Impact

Posted on by

For months and months we have been hearing snippets of the Hillary Clinton server/email saga. We cant begin to put it all in chronological order yet much less can we know all the players involved. We do know there are countless investigations and the most recent State Department Inspector General report is the most damning of all summaries so far. Curiously, Hillary and some in her inner circle refused to be interviewed or cooperate with the IG.

Furthermore, there are more testimonies yet to be recorded where Judicial Watch has been granted judge’s authority to move forward with key Hillary people as the judge is experienced with the Hillary email matter, going back to 1998 Filegate.

   

So, personally, I would like to see some questioned posed to Hillary and her entire team and they include:

  1. If Hillary did not send or receive classified material in her only email address and server, since she never had a dot gov email address, then exactly where did she received or interact on classified material? As noted by this particular email, she asked that items be printed out and delivered to her in hardcopy.
  2. So, we have hardcopies, okay then, well, where is that paper and did she shred the hardcopies? Remember in the case of David Petraeus, he had a hardcopy bound note book, a personal journal that Paula Broadwell got access to.
  3. Two part question: So, now we know that Hillary did not have any password protected mobile device. Did anyone tell her to apply password protections to her Blackberry, iPad or iPhone? When Hillary was asked if she wiped the server and her response was you mean with a cloth? I stood alone responding she does not know how any of this works. Appears to now be quite accurate and further, did not one person in her inner circle teach her the fundamentals?
  4. Did Hillary ever get any briefings in a classified setting like a SCIF? Hillary has never mentioned using a SCIF much less has there been reference to having access to a SCIF in any emails that have been published.
  5. Has anyone asked Hillary or her team if she had other email addresses outside of those listed on her server like at any time like Lavabit or Silent Circle or even Reagan dot com, not that the last one she would even consider? Hillary was using a Blackberry going back to when she was a senator, and Lavabit was the encrypted service of choice at the time.
  6. Barack Obama issued an Executive Order #13526 which further tightened regulations of classified material and interaction of classified material, did Hillary and her team bother to take this seriously and if so how? Did they make the mandated adjustments in this regard?
  7. Did Hillary or any on her team sign a separation document upon leaving the State Department? The answer is not that anyone can find. So, what is the procedure on that with regard further turning over all government material and correspondence?
  8. A top Hillary aid said he wanted to avoid FOIA (Freedom of Information Act Requests) and this is curious as he would likely not care unless it was an edict put out by Hillary herself? So, is this a criminal act in and of itself?

So, Judicial Watch is still busy interviewing the Hillary team. The testimony of Ambassador Lukens is here. Cheryl Mills along with her attorney Beth Wilkinson filed a recent motion to block the public release of the video tape of her testimony with Judicial Watch.

There is still the matter of the investigation of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation. My buddy Charles Ortel has given up all other matters to take the deep dive and continue the investigation. He has uncovered some remarkable facts that are beyond dispute. On May 19, 2016, I interviewed Charles. He gave a chilling summary of facts to date.

Meet Some that Donate To Donald and Hillary and Why

Posted on by

The ‘why’ is the real problem actually. No one is pointing to specific policy positions, objectives or character. The electorate remains uninformed and likes the station of ‘low information’. The Hat, Really? Nothing about liberty, national security or repealing bad legislation….

Meet the people who have donated to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Analysis reveals one of Election 2016’s smallest — and oddest — clubs

PublicIntegrity: Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump have precious little in common.

But the two all-but-certain presidential nominees do share this: at least three-dozen campaign contributors who gave money to both of them, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of federal campaign finance filings.

The donors compose one of the nation’s smallest political clubs, to be sure, although it has its share of notable members. They include a former U.S. ambassador to Sweden, the heiress to the National Enquirer fortune, the mother of an Ohio state senator, a professional poker player, a writer for the ABC hit television series “Castle” and a law professor who has challenged the constitutional eligibility of former Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz.

The reasons for their double dealings vary. Some gave to both politicians after undergoing ideological conversions. Others donated because they were asked by friends or trusted associates. Some Clinton supporters just wanted Trump’s iconic “Make America Great Again” hats — even if the money they spent would aid the billionaire businessman’s presidential bid.

While Americans may only vote for one presidential candidate come November, there’s nothing stopping them from giving money to multiple White House hopefuls. Nine of these overlapping donors contributed $2,700 — the legal maximum allowed during the primary — to both Clinton and Trump.

Others gave more modest sums.

With the primary season now nearing its end, both Clinton and Trump are also aiming to make inroads with voters who typically vote for the other party in order to prevail on Election Day in November.

Trump is hoping his populism can win over some Democrats, while Clinton believes that Trump’s brash antics will attract some Republicans to support her candidacy.

Both can already claim some converts.

Changes of heart

For instance, Victor Williams, a law professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., last year donated $400 to Clinton’s campaign as a “dutiful Democrat.”

But he now says he’s “a Trump man” — and has donated $5,400 to Trump’s campaign, $2,700 toward the primary and $2,700 toward the general election.

Another way he’s trying to help Trump: He’s been the main force behind a so-far-unsuccessful New Jersey lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility to be president. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen living in Canada when she gave birth to her son. (Presidents must be “natural-born citizens.”)

In order to have legal standing for the case, Williams himself also launched a long-shot presidential bid.

On his campaign website, Williams asserts that Clinton should be “criminally indicted” for some of her actions as secretary of state. He further argues that “we must replace the feckless, weak Barack Obama with a strong, determined 45th president.”

“What I’m genuinely excited about is the possibility that the established political order and those elites who have been at the trough for 40, 50 years will be sent home,” Williams told the Center for Public Integrity. “It’s really now or never.”

Then there’s Anthony Brennan, the owner of a Long Island, New York-based heating and air conditioning company. He says he regrets donating $2,700 to Clinton, whom he calls “corrupt to the core.”

“I have no faith whatsoever that this lady can run a country,” said Brennan, explaining that he made the contribution to Clinton after being asked to give by some people with whom he does business — and before he had done any research on her.

Campaign finance records indicate Brennan has now also contributed $244 to Trump — money that, he explained, went toward Trump gear, stickers and the 40 Trump signs he now displays in his yard.

“The country has written off the hard-working men who are the backbone, who keep this government funded with our payroll taxes,” Brennan told the Center for Public Integrity, adding that he plans to donate up to $100,000 to pro-Trump efforts this year because “our country is in need.”

“Finally there’s a voice for us,” he continued.

Professional poker player Daniel “Miami Boss” Suied also likes Trump’s economic views.

Suied, who gave Clinton’s campaign $500 last year at the behest of some Democratic Party friends in Florida, has also donated $367 to Trump’s campaign, including at least $200 in April.

“I was a huge fan of Bill Clinton,” Suied told the Center for Public Integrity. “I like Trump now.”

Making hats great again

Meanwhile, New York City-based lawyer Chris DiAngelo, a self-described “Rockefeller Republican,” told the Center for Public Integrity he gave Clinton’s campaign $2,700 last June, after being asked by a friend.

Six months later he became a Trump campaign donor because, he says, he purchased six of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” hats for a New Year’s Eve party.

A “big hit” is how DiAngelo described the headwear.

So who will DiAngelo be supporting in November? “It’s probably either going to be Hillary or nobody,” he said. “Unless Trump does something amazing, like, I don’t know, the pope is his running mate.”

Television writer and producer Moira Kirland — whose credits include ABC’s “Castle,” CBS’s “Madam Secretary” and the CW’s “Arrow” — is a registered Democrat who likewise became a Trump donor after buying merchandise.

“I just wanted to wear that ‘Make America Great Again’ shirt ironically in January!” said Kirland, who is listed in campaign finance records as giving $211 to Trump and $900 to Clinton.

A similar story played out for Adam Conner, who works for technology company Slack in Washington, D.C., and spent $533 buying Trump hats while at the same time giving $360 to Clinton’s campaign.

“I thought they’d be good gifts and a fun collector’s item and didn’t think I’d have very long to buy them. Guess I was wrong,” Conner told The Daily Beast earlier this year.

Reached by the Center for Public Integrity, Conner stressed that he was “a committed Democrat who will support the Democratic nominee,” even if his hat purchases helped fund Trump’s campaign.

Giving big, saying little

For some of the people who have given money to both Clinton and Trump, their motivations aren’t readily apparent. Nor are they particularly willing to discuss their political giving.

For instance, campaign finance records show that Nancy Beang, the former executive director of the Society for Neuroscience, donated $2,700 to Clinton in July. She then donated $250 to Trump in January.

Reached by phone, Beang, who was a member of the District of Columbia Women for Hillary Council during Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, declined to comment.

In March, Beang told The Daily Beast that she was backing Trump because she thought he would “make America great again.”

For his part, Jeffrey Sherman, a financial advisor at J.P. Morgan Securities in Boston, gave $1,000 to Trump shortly after Trump launched his presidential bid last summer. Yet he’s also given $739 to Clinton so far this year.

Why?

“I’m not commenting,” Sherman told the Center for Public Integrity. “I’m the wrong guy to help you out.”

Meanwhile, campaign finance disclosures show that Lyndon Olson — who served as the U.S. ambassador to Sweden under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 — gave $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign last year. But he also contributed $796 to Trump in February.

Philanthropist Lois Pope, heiress to the National Enquirer fortune, likewise contributed $2,700 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. But she’s also given Trump $423 and has attended multiple events for him this year, often sporting sequined, pro-Trump regalia.

Then there’s lawyer Eric Yollick, who earlier this year lost a GOP primary for district judge in Texas. Yollick, who refers to himself as a “constitutional conservative” and pledged to “make our courthouse great again,” has donated $2,600 to both Trump and Clinton.

Olson, Pope and Yollick did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Like buying extra lottery tickets’

Ohio Democrat Janet Cafaro is another donor who’s given significant sums to both Clinton and Trump.

Campaign finance records show she gave Clinton $2,700 in November and $2,700 to Trump in March.

Who is Janet Cafaro? She’s the mother of Democratic state Sen. Capri Cafaro of Ohio and the wife of developer John “J.J.” Cafaro.

The Cafaros, a wealthy Ohio family, have experienced both the glamorous and gritty aspects of politics.

On one hand, they’ve hosted President Bill Clinton at their sprawling, Tudor-style mansion in Chevy Chase, Maryland. On the other hand, John Cafaro was fined in 2002 for bribing former U.S. Rep. James Traficant of Ohio, whom he testified against in court.

Janet Cafaro could not immediately be reached for comment, but Capri Cafaro told the Center for Public Integrity she asked her mother to donate to Clinton ahead of a local event.

“There’s no ideological reason behind their financial support for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump,” Cafaro said of her parents’ political giving. (John Cafaro, like Janet Cafaro, has also donated $2,700 to Trump.)

Only a handful of other donors have contributed $2,700 to both Clinton and Trump.

They include Steve Gorlin, the vice chairman of biotechnology company NantKwest; Scott Powell, the president of the Sacramento Jet Center; and Scott Shleifer of investment company Tiger Global Management, according to federal records. None could be immediately reached for comment.

Political observers note that for some donors, backing multiple candidates can be about access and hoping to influence a politician’s agenda.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, has said that “donating to multiple candidates is like buying extra lottery tickets” because “you have more chances to wind up in the winner’s circle, with all the perks of having backed the victor.”

Ahead of the 2012 election, dozens of donors contributed to both President Barack Obama and his Republican rival Mitt Romney, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. Likewise, during the 2008 election, about two-dozen donors gave at least $2,300 to both Obama and Republican John McCain.

To be certain, the roughly three-dozen campaign donors shared by Clinton and Trump identified by the Center for Public Integrity represent a conservative estimate as only people who give a candidate at least $200 must be publicly disclosed.

Through April 30, Trump has raised about $10.5 million from people who each gave less than $200 and whose names have not been publicly released. Clinton, meanwhile, has raised about $40.2 million from such small-dollar donors.

Moreover, as Trump now turns to more traditional sources of campaign cash — he’s largely been self-funding his presidential bid to date — the number of donors he shares with Clinton will likely grow.

Undecided between Clinton and Trump

While polls do regularly show a portion of voters still undecided between Clinton and Trump, you might not expect someone who’s opened up their wallet to support a politician to fall into that category.

Yet that’s the case for at least one Florida man who has contributed $287 to Trump and $899 to Clinton.

Michael Ginsberg, a Tampa-based lawyer, explained that his giving was not ideological.

“I’ve gone to their stores and bought things,” he said, adding that he’s been collecting political memorabilia — mainly buttons — since he was a kid and has a collection that now numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands, of items.

“I’m sort of torn between the two,” Ginsberg said of Clinton and Trump. “Both have things of interest and elements of concern.”

Chris Zubak-Skees and Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

This article was co-published with The Daily Beast.

IG Report on Hillary Not Following Guidelines

Posted on by

Only today the report was given to members of Congress for review. So maybe that ‘security review’ thing Hillary continued to mention was the IG’s report. Well hee hee, if so, Hillary flunked that review.

Would you like to read the report? Here is the 83 page Inspector General summary for your convenience. The Inspector General is a neutral position and the report does make recommendations. The report does become part of the FBI two track investigation. Consider the timing of all of this, the hearings in Congress, the interrogatories by Judicial Watch, the extradition of the hacker Guccifer who appeared in court today and pled guilty, the leak of the Terry McAuliffe donations and now this. Hummmm….

 

 

OIG makes eight recommendations. They include issuing enhanced and more frequent guidance on the permissible use of personal email accounts to conduct official business, amending Departmental policies to provide for administrative penalties for failure to comply with records preservation and cybersecurity requirements, and developing a quality assurance plan to address vulnerabilities in records management and preservation. The Department concurred with all of OIG’s recommendations.

The title:

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements

State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules

The inspector general report is the latest headache for Clinton in the scandal over her exclusive use of private email for State business.

Politico: A State Department watchdog concluded that Hillary Clinton failed to comply with the agency’s policies on records while using a personal email server that was not approved by agency officials even though it should have been, according to a report released to lawmakers on Wednesday.

The long-awaited findings from the agency’s inspector general, which also revealed Clinton expressing reluctance about using an official email account and apparent hacking attempts on her private server, were shared with Capitol Hill Wednesday, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. It’s the latest turn in the headache-inducing saga that has dogged Clinton’s campaign.

While the report concludes that the agency suffers from “longstanding, systemic weaknesses” with records that “go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State,” it specifically dings Clinton for her exclusive use of private email during her four years at the agency.

“Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

The report also notes that she had an “obligation to discuss using her personal email account” but did not get permission from the people who would have needed to approve the technology.

“According to the current [chief information officer] and assistant secretary for diplomatic security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs,” the report reads. “However, according to these officials, [the relevant people] did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email.”

The watchdog also “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

The report also included a revealing November 2011 exchange in which Clinton’s right-hand staffer Huma Abedin discussed with her the possibility of putting her on a State Department email because her messages were not being received by State staff.

Clinton responded with concerns of privacy issues.

“We should talk about putting you on [S]tate email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam,” she wrote.

Clinton responded: “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

The watchdog’s findings could exact further damage to Clinton’s campaign, and they provide fresh fodder for Trump, who has already said he will go after Clinton for the email scandal “bigly.” The Democratic frontrunner’s bid for the White House has already been hindered by high unfavorability ratings, with people saying they don’t trust her.

The report represents the latest pushback — in this case by a nonpartisan government entity — against her campaign’s claim that she did not break any rules and that her use of a private server was completely allowed.

The report also details how some technology staff said they were instructed to not talk of Clinton’s email set-up after they raised concerns about the unusual arrangement. It also includes conflicting information about whether the private email server had been approved by the State Department’s legal staff.

“In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements,” the document states. “According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.”

The watchdog report goes on to say that a staff member from the office that handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary recounted the hush nature of the email arrangement.

“According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again,” the report states.

The report further gets into security concerns about the private email server, including some fears that the server was vulnerable to hackers.

It states that a non-State adviser to Bill Clinton, who was the original user of the server later taken over by Hillary Clinton, shut down the server in early 2011 because of hacking concerns.

“On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt [sic] want to let them have the chance to,’” the report says. “Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.’”

The report goes on to detail another incident in May and says that Clinton and her staff did not appropriate report the matters.

“Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” it says. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”

State has since deemed more than 2,000 of her messages as classified, including several that were upgraded to the most sensitive national security classification, “top secret.” And the FBI is still probing whether any laws were broken laws by putting classified information at risk — or whether her staff improperly sent sensitive information knowing it wasn’t on a classified system.

At the very least, State’s inspector general says she didn’t do what she was supposed to, though it also notes widespread email issues across the tenures of five secretaries of state, not just Clinton.

“OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership,” the report concluded. “OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.”

The report states that its findings are based on interviews with current Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessors Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

Clinton and her deputies, however, declined the IG’s requests for interviews. Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and top deputies Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin are among those who did not cooperate with the probe.

Clinton and her allies have contended she did nothing illegal by choosing to set up a private email server and account at her Chappaqua, New York, home, and that she was not trying to evade public records requests. Instead, Clinton has said she was motivated by the desire for convenience, though she has conceded it was not the best choice.

The State Department has released roughly 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to her former agency at its request in December 2014. While there were no apparent bombshells in the content of the messages, the number of emails later deemed classified has raised questions about the security and wisdom of the set-up.

Clinton has also faced scrutiny for instructing her staff to delete about 32,000 messages deemed personal by her team. It’s unclear how many of those emails the FBI may have been able to recover from her server — which was turned over to authorities last August — or whether those messages will eventually be made public.

The report gives more details of the under-the-radar work of Clinton’s top technology staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who she paid to maintain her private email server. State’s chief information officer and deputy chief information officers, Pagliano’s direct bosses, told investigators that he never informed them of his side duties. They “believed that Pagliano’s job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department.”

“They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working hours,” the report reads.

The top technology officers also told investigators they “questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time government employee.”

Pagliano took the Fifth and refused to answer questions on the matter before Congress but received immunity from the FBI to talk about the email arrangement. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been eager to question him on whether Clinton intentionally used private email because she didn’t want anyone getting access to her messages.