In the past, whenever there has been a significant breach and/or compromise of our sensitive intelligence, the Intelligence Community forms a team to assess the damage. The assessment specifically identifies what was potentially lost to our enemies and the impact it may have had on achieving our objectives then and in the future. It may be recalled that this happened after the discovery of the John Walker spy ring in the 1980s. Walker was a retired Navy Lt. Commander who was selling the Soviet Union our Navy communication codes. Not surprisingly, the assessment concluded that the damage was significant. The same type of assessment was made on Soviet spies Robert Hanssen from the FBI and the CIA’s Aldrich Ames.

With our continuing vulnerability to cyber-attacks on many of our most secured government and industrial networks and systems, there is no question that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server was hacked by many, if not all of our potential enemies including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, et al. Therefore, unquestionably, the compromise of our former Secretary of State’s communications for four years qualifies as a serious security breach. Now, with the completion of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s investigation into the use of a private, unsecured server by Hillary Clinton, her aides as well as former President Barack Obama, an assessment must be made. After all, let’s not forget that their actions in knowingly using an unsecured server was a clear violation of the Espionage Act and they must be held accountable.

The compromise of our Secretary of State’s server had to be a gold mine for our potential enemies. This fact cannot be obscured by one of the IG report’s most significant failings, which was that Inspector General Michael Horowitz could find no documentary evidence that the Federal Bureau of “Incompetence” (FBI) decision to not prosecute Mrs. Clinton was affected by any political bias. This defies credibility, considering statements by Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and other agents who expressed a determination to stop candidate Trump from becoming President. Further, when Page sought assurance from Strzok that Trump’s “not ever going to become president, right? Right?,” he said, “No, no he’s not. We’ll stop it!” Case closed! In that sense, Horowitz’s report is reminiscent to some extent of Chairman Trey Gowdy’s 800-page report on the Benghazi debacle, when he couldn’t find the courage to clearly and publicly identify the report’s findings on Secretary Clinton’s role in this disaster. He instead urged the public to read the full report and come to their own conclusions.

To Horowitz’s credit, he laid out a persuasive case, including many emails, about the wrongdoing and bias committed by Strzok, Page and others. In his conclusion he wrote, “While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed in Chapter Five [“Investigative Methods Used in the Investigation”], the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation.”