A group of Democratic lawmakers expressed concern on Thursday that Hillary Clinton was being unfairly treated by the inspectors general responsible for investigating her use of a personal email server.
“Based on public reports and communications from your offices to Congress, we have serious questions about how this review is being conducted,” the group wrote to Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.
Members signing the letter included Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Mich.
The disgruntled members cited two issues that they found particularly concerning. The first, they said, was an employee of the State Department’s inspector general who claimed last week that there was an “anti-Clinton” bias in the office. Secondly, they said, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general was determining the classification of some emails on Hillary’s server “in error.”
The Intelligence Community’s OIG did not offer an immediate response to the letter. Doug Welty, a spokesman for the State Department’s OIG, insisted in a statement that his office “operates as an independent organization, consistent with the law,” and that its work is “unbiased, objective and fact-based.”
“Any suggestion that the office is biased against any particular secretary is completely false,” he added.
The Democratic members of Congress are asking both offices to provide answers to a number of questions by the end of month pertaining to methods each have used in their investigations to date; how decisions are made in each office; and what avenues are available for disgruntled employees to complain.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2585456
“Given the importance of the integrity of this review, we ask that any future releases of information by your offices be accurate, impartial, and complete,” the members add. “Already, this review has been too politicized. We are relying on you as independent inspectors general to perform your duties dispassionately and comprehensively,” they conclude.
