You have to ask. "How is it that Hillary went all that time, at least four or five years without anyone noticing that there was something horribly wrong at the State Department?
One glaringly obvious reason is that the person charged with oversight of that department was, well, MISSING.
During Hillary Clinton's reign at the state department there was no permanent, independent, Inspector General, the position that most likely would have detected any discrepancies in the State Department and the Secretary of State's Communications and Security policies.
This is why the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, is inquiring with the State Department and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and now Secretary of State John Kerry, about why no one was overseeing those sections of government.
According to Grassley:
"...Every agency needs a permanent, independent inspector general ... The position is too important to assign to a placeholder. An acting inspector general doesn’t have the mandate to lead, and he or she might not be able to withstand pushback from an agency that doesn’t want to cooperate with oversight...Grassley says the White House allowed the position to be “temporarily” filled by an individual with demonstrated close ties to the officials he was charged with overseeing and that the work of the subsequent, Senate-confirmed inspector general provides insight into some of the problems that arose from the previous unusual arrangement. He said the permanent inspector general reported that aides to Clinton contributed to an “appearance of undue influence and favoritism” in departmental investigations of three allegations: that the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium allegedly solicited a prostitute; that a department manager allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct and harassment; and that Cheryl Mills, then chief of staff and counselor to Clinton, allegedly unduly influenced an investigation of an unauthorized release of communications concerning a nominee for a U.S. ambassadorship.
"... more than five years without a permanent inspector general at the State Department is 'egregious.' That covers the entire four-year tenure of Secretary Hillary Clinton, the only secretary of State to have served without a single permanent inspector general overseeing the department since the creation of that watchdog position in 1957...
“...The Obama Administration should answer for why it allowed that to happen ... There’s been no transparency on the reason for the lack of an appointment for so long. We’ll never know the extent of the damage to good governance caused by this lapse, but it’s fair to say some of the problems exposed lately probably could have been prevented with a permanent inspector general in place...”
Grassley has issued an interrogatory to find out why this has occurred:
"...Although that extended vacancy was roundly criticized at the time, it has taken on a new significance in light of the controversies related to the former Secretary’s use of a nongovernment email server for her official communications. Secretary Clinton is the only Secretary of State to have served every single day of her tenure without a permanent IG overseeing the Department since that watchdog position was created in 1957.1 Accordingly, the timing, circumstances, and reasons for that extended vacancy deserve renewed scrutiny. Rather than nominating a candidate for Senate confirmation, the President opted instead to allow the position to be “temporarily” filled by an individual with demonstrated close ties to the officials he was charged with overseeing. The law prohibits career foreign service officers from becoming permanent IGs because of the inherent conflict of interest. However, the Department’s Acting IG during this period was a former ambassador with decades in the Foreign Service. The work of the subsequent, Senate-confirmed IG provides insight into some of the problems that arose from the previous unusual arrangement. In October 2014, for example, the State Department’s most recent, Senate-confirmed Inspector General reported that aides to former Secretary Clinton contributed to an “appearance of undue influence and favoritism” in departmental investigations of three allegations:
(1) that the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium allegedly solicited a prostitute;
(2) that a Department manager allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct and harassment; and
(3) that Cheryl Mills, then Chief of Staff and Counselor to Secretary Clinton, allegedly unduly influenced an investigation of an unauthorized release of communications concerning a nominee for a U.S. ambassadorship.
On March 18, 2015, seventeen of my colleagues and I sent Secretary Kerry a letter concerning whistleblowers’ allegations that the former U.S. Consul General in Naples, Italy engaged in similar sexual misconduct from 2010 to 2013 and that whistleblowers suffered retaliation as a result of reporting this misconduct. Significantly, that letter also referenced allegations that in 2011, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General—then headed by an Acting IG—mishandled whistleblowers’ protected disclosures by forwarding those disclosures to officials in Rome who were the subjects of the whistleblower complaints. The whistleblowers also suggested that the then Ambassador to Italy, who has extensive personal ties to Secretary Kerry, may have had an undue influence in the investigation of their allegations..."
Grassley requests information about who the candidates were that were nominated to fill the IG vacancy at the State Department; when they were recommended; who sent the recommendations to the White House... in short: Why the inaction to appoint someone.
But is that enough?
Ultimately the security breaches, including the gross endangerment of our national security, the conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, the possible and likely situation that Clinton's unsecured server was hacked by U.S. enemies and rivals, all fall under the area of responsibility of the Commander-In-Chief. And that is Barack Obama.
To date the target of investigation has been Hillary Clinton, and a host of her aides and alleged accomplices. But there is no mention of the responsibility of her boss, Barack Obama.
Where is the clamor for joint accountability? Where is the outrage against an entire administration, who although it appears has been acting during an eight year term with gross negligence and incompetence, that can only be described as treasonous, is more likely to have given away state secrets in return for political favors, and worse yet, MONEY, as part of an agenda that has no regard for the safety and well being of those they were elected to serve?
How do you pull off the surrender of a nation and get paid for it in billions? You fail to appoint the one who was supposed to investigate such matters, so that the perpetrators of treason can then blame, who?
Beyond the tit for tat in the media and the slow release of details, the search for evidence, someone is going to pay, if not now, later, for the criminally insane that would perpetrate such schemes, always assist in making themselves accountable, and they always facilitate the efforts of those that would hold them so accountable.
Who might that be?