Hillary Clinton�s awkward intransigence in the face of an
unrelenting e-mail scandal is playing out under the harsh media
spotlight of a presidential campaign. Garnering less attention
is the intransigence of a former Clinton colleague at Foggy
Bottom, who appears to be leading an effort to shield her
potentially classified e-mails from further scrutiny by the
intelligence community.

He is Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, and for weeks now
he has denied the intelligence community inspector general (IG)
access to Clinton�s e-mails, while substantially limiting the
access granted to the State Department�s own IG. He�s also
ignored official guidance from both IGs on how his department
can improve its classification-review process and catch
sensitive material before it�s publicly released.

Kennedy�s ongoing resistance is the latest skirmish in a three-
month battle between the State Department and the two federal
watchdogs over how many of Clinton�s e-mails contain classified
information. Since June, the department has pushed back
forcefully against the IGs� repeated warnings that reams of
classified material sat on Clinton�s private server. A
preliminary probe by the IGs in June found that State Department
attorneys had overruled findings by their subordinates that some
of the e-mails contained national-security secrets. Without
sustained pressure from both IGs � and two bombshell
announcements the watchdogs made on July 23 and August 11 � the
public would likely still be unaware that classified materials
were found in e-mails on the server, that these materials were
classified at the time of their sending, and that in at least
two cases these materials were Top Secret.

Even now, Kennedy and State Department management continue to
drag their feet � quibbling over whether the information
contained in the e-mails was classified retroactively and
refusing to confirm the Top Secret designation of the two e-
mails found by the intelligence community. A spokeswoman for
intelligence community IG I. Charles McCullough tells National
Review that McCullough �has had no further communications from
Undersecretary Kennedy since he declined [on July 24] to
implement two out of four recommendations and denied our office
any further access to the 30,000 e-mails.� (The State Department
did not respond to a request for comment.) To some, the dispute
is little more than a federal turf war, albeit one waged on a
highly visible battleground. But congressional investigators
continue to worry that unless intelligence reviewers are better
integrated into the process, the public may never know the
quantity and importance of the classified information exposed by
Clinton�s use of a private server.

The dispute began in early June after State Department inspector
general Steve Linick was directed by Congress to investigate the
State Department�s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) review of
approximately 30,000 government e-mails stored on Clinton�s
private server. Linick invited McCullough to provide outside
help from the intelligence community, and the two IGs launched a
dual inquiry into the State Department�s efforts to determine
how many of Clinton�s e-mails contained classified information.

Both IGs expressed alarm at State�s use of retired Foreign
Service officers rather than intelligence officers to review
Clinton�s communications; at the department�s storage of the e-
mails on a system that wasn�t designed to safeguard �Top Secret�
information; and, especially, at the apparent reversal of at
least four findings of classified material by the department�s
lawyers. They recommended that State include FOIA specialists
from several intelligence agencies in the review process; that
it have intelligence personnel review the system on which the e-
mails are being stored while they�re reviewed to ensure that it
is secure enough to house Top Secret materials; and that it
allow the intelligence community to act as the �final arbiter�
on classification questions.

Kennedy rebuffed their requests. �The Department finds the
issues raised by the ICIG are either already addressed in
current processes or are inconsistent with interagency
practices,� he wrote, according to a series of memos later
published by Linick. One ex�State Department official says
Kennedy was right to stand his ground. �The State Department is
not going to want another agency to start reviewing all its e-
mails and go, �Oh, this should�ve been classified, and that
should�ve been classified,�� he says. �That seems like a
dangerous precedent to set.�

Others find the pushback unfortunate, particularly since
McCullough�s inquiry was sanctioned by the State Department�s
own inspector general. �If their own IG agrees with the IG of
the intelligence community, then [State] needs to take it up
with their own IG,� says a former general counsel to a federal
inspector general.

Kennedy relented on one issue as Linick and McCullough unearthed
more evidence. In a June 29 letter they said department staff
had found �hundreds of potentially classified e-mails,� and that
there was concern the sensitive information could be publicly
released. �Under the circumstances, we continue to urge the
Department to adopt the recommendations made by the IC IG in our
June 19 memorandum,� they wrote.

Kennedy responded on July 14, indicating he was �making
arrangements� with the intelligence community to allow their
FOIA reviewers to join the State Department team tasked with
combing through the e-mails. But he continued to resist the
remaining recommendations, and the inspectors general sent a
curt response letter two days later, informing Kennedy they
considered the other two recommendations �unresolved.� �There
are clearly some raw nerves between these two programs,� says a
senior security policy official. �The State Department,
institutionally, feels that it does not fall under the oversight
of intelligence community elements. For it to be perceived as
being criticized, or being directed by, an intelligence
community authority � that rubs them the wrong way.�

The tussle between the two institutions went public soon after
Kennedy�s final refusal. On July 23, McCullough released a
statement explaining that reviewers from his office had found
four e-mails containing classified information in a mere 40 e-
mail sample. The news contradicted Clinton�s earlier contention
that she had never sent or received classified information over
her private server, putting her presidential campaign on the
defensive in the press. McCullough also asked the State
Department to provide him and Linick with copies of all 30,000 e-
mails in order to perform further sampling for classified
material. But while the department agreed to provide Linick with
limited access, McCullough wrote that State �rejected my
office�s requests on jurisdictional grounds.�

The next day, the two IGs challenged the State Department�s
claim that Clinton�s e-mails had not been classified when they
were first sent or received. �These e-mails contained classified
information when they were generated and, according to
[intelligence community] classification officials, the
information remains classified today,� they said July 24. Linick
also posted the complete correspondence between the IGs and
Kennedy on his website.

The State Department has remained largely unresponsive to the
concerns. Nearly two weeks after Linick and McCullough�s
statement, a department spokesperson said they still �frankly
[didn�t] know� if the IGs were correct in their assertion that
the material was classified when it was first sent. And although
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa)
revealed on August 11 that McCullough had found two of the e-
mails contained Top Secret information, State won�t confirm that
finding. While the stalemate between State and the IGs
continues, Grassley is expressing ever-louder concerns about the
integrity of the department�s investigation.

Yesterday, he released a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry
warning that the �process for vetting e-mails for Freedom of
Information Act requests at the State Department may be
compromised.� The letter demanded that the department provide a
response to the intelligence community IG�s questions and
concerns over the e-mail review, and explain �what steps are
being taken to ensure any [classification] disputes are resolved
fairly and objectively based on the merits rather than on
political considerations or any loyalties to the former
Secretary and her private counsel.� If, as Grassley fears, the
process truly is compromised, and if reviewers from the
intelligence community aren�t given greater access to Clinton�s
e-mails and oversight of their classification, it could make it
more difficult to accurately determine how much sensitive
material she shared on her private server, and how sensitive it
was. Despite the IGs� efforts, the full truth of the case may
never be known.