I thought I would do a short essay on my own understanding of what the Inspector General's report is and is not. I have read at several places that people are disappointed at the most recent report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Without passing judgment on the content of the IG report, which I have not yet read, I am going to try lay out a framework for understanding what we have seen thus far from the OIG.

Perhaps one of the harshest critiques hurled at presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, by the current State Dept Inspector General, was this:

"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."

Any Government Employee knows (should know) that everything you do as a Government Employee IS, and one day will (presumptive) become 'a permanent' Public Record. That is what the National Archives is all about. This is because you are working on the public's dime, so the public "has a right to know" what you are actually doing. In theory anyways ... that is what the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is supposed to be all about -- the public's "right to know" ... holding our Government "accountable", ... Sunshine is the best disinfectant, etc. etc.