Author Topic: Is Hillary Hiding Something  (Read 118291 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #150 on: August 24, 2015, 05:50:22 PM »
No, I don't care what you think. 

again, this is attack #3 upon me.  I'd like to think we should keep this thread about which felonies Hilary may have committed.  Any efforts to distract people from Hilary's crimes, well, let's just say it's very un-Reagan-like.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #151 on: August 24, 2015, 06:34:50 PM »
again, this is attack #3 upon me.  I'd like to think we should keep this thread about which felonies Hilary may have committed.  Any efforts to distract people from Hilary's crimes, well, let's just say it's very un-Reagan-like.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #152 on: August 26, 2015, 10:53:44 AM »
I think someone is going to get prosecuted, whether it's Hillary or one of her underlings who gets thrown under the bus.

INTEL AGENCIES CONFIRM HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED — BY OBAMA

Democratic presidential candidate and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answers questions from members of the media following a campaign stop at Dr. William U. Pearson Community Center on August 18, 2015 in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Earlier, more than 300 people attended a town hall where she touted her college affordability plan.Isaac Brekken/Getty Images
by JOHN HAYWARD
25 Aug 2015393

Another Hillary Clinton talking point is about to bite the dust, as Fox News reports confirmation from three different intelligence agencies – the DIA, the NSA, and the NGA (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, in charge of satellite intel) – that email on her server was classified on the day she sent it, and remains classified to this very day.

Furthermore, although Clinton has attempted to portray herself as everything from a “passive and unwitting” recipient of sensitive material to a fearless warrior on a one-woman crusade to reform silly classification rules, the Fox report makes it clear that only the intelligence agencies originating this information have the authority to declassify it, not anyone at the State Department – not Hillary Clinton, and most certainly not her top aide, Huma Abedin, who figures prominently in this story, and is looking more and more like the perfect stooge to take a fall for Clinton.

The State Department’s lack of authority to overrule intelligence agency classifications was confirmed by… a 2009 executive order from President Barack Obama. Does Hillary need one of those special little lectures about respecting the “settled law of the land?” Will we get to enjoy the spectacle of Clinton apologists claiming Obama’s executive orders were bureaucratic trifles, to be ignored as the Secretary of State saw fit?

A term raised with increasingly frequency by commentators who have first-hand experience with classified material is the “air gap” – a point of very deliberate interruption in the passage of classified material, to ensure it cannot be transmitted seamlessly to non-secure systems.

Stated simply, it’s supposed to be impossible for classified documents to get into an insecure system like Clinton’s without significant human intervention. Someone has to remove the classified information from a secure area and manually copy or scan it into the insecure system. That’s the only way Hillary Clinton could receive this classified material on her home-brew email server. Breaching the “air gap” is an offense punishable by prison time.

Did I say “human intervention?” Maybe we should make that “Huma intervention.”

One of the emails Abedin forwarded to Clinton in 2009, despite its clear classification markings, concerned embassy security issues. How much discussion of embassy security flowed through this insecure system prior to September 11, 2012?

In the best-case scenario, if Clinton’s dodges and excuses are taken at face value, she displayed stunningly poor judgment in bulling her way past agency protocols to create this email system for what she claims was mere personal convenience. Even Clinton herself complained that “what was supposed to be convenient has turned out to be anything but convenient.”

Why should America put someone so foolish into the Oval Office, even if she isn’t formally accused of a criminal offense for what she has done? It’s increasingly clear she and her people knew how much work it would take to make this unprecedented private mail system work from Day One, but they did it anyway. It’s likely that few in the intelligence community realized what she was doing, and if they had known she would one day portray herself as the adversary of the entire Administration, including the President, on which documents should be classified – and claim she had the unilateral right to disregard classifications she thought were unnecessary – they would have raised hell.

Clinton has been laying low since her disastrous orange-jumpsuit Las Vegas press appearance, entrusting a wave of flunkies and State Department spokesmen to muddy the waters while she rides it out… perhaps growing a bit impatient that so much time is running off the campaign clock, but still confident she can pop the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16%

 bubble and collect her “inevitable” nomination in time for the general election to begin in earnest.

The Obama years have amplified Clinton’s own experience that Democrats can outlast nearly any scandal – there’s been a little mainstream-media grumbling about how it’s weird for a presidential campaign to be grinding along without a visible candidate, but they haven’t forged any lethal Narratives against Clinton, and everyone’s paying attention to Donald Trump right now anyway.

Clinton has every reason to think she can spare the time to let the email scandal burn itself out, perhaps throwing an aide or two onto the fire… unless the unthinkable happens, and she really does face a formal indictment… or Joe Biden enters the race, and she can’t stay invisible any more. It would be funny if both of those nigh-inconceivable events happened at roughly the same time, wouldn’t it?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/25/intel-agencies-confirm-hillary-clinton-emails-were-classified-by-obama/

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #153 on: August 26, 2015, 11:16:33 AM »
next we'll have an ollie north-type come out & take all the blame.

and obama will pardon his ass.

Won't be so heroic when dems do it...

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #154 on: August 26, 2015, 02:26:07 PM »
This doesn't look like its going to end well.....

in before Coach shows up and blames Obama for this as well

TuHolmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
  • Darkness is fated to eventually be destroyed...
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #155 on: August 27, 2015, 06:48:57 PM »

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #156 on: August 28, 2015, 06:40:52 AM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #157 on: August 31, 2015, 02:39:34 PM »
Source: FBI ‘A-team’ leading ‘serious’ Clinton server probe, focusing on defense info
By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne
Published August 28, 2015
FoxNews.com

An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News.

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign's standard defense and that of Clinton is that she "never sent nor received any email that was marked classified" at the time.

It is not clear how the FBI team's findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for -- as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

The FBI offered no comment.

A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.

"Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information," attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. "Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held."

Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton's defense.

The Code of Federal Regulations, or "CFR," states: "Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose."

A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the "send" or "receive" distinction.

Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.

Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.

"Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified," said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. "There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something -- that's not an excuse."

The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet "safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency." Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business -- and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall -- appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.

Fox News was first to report, Aug. 19, that two emails -- from aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan -- with classified information kick-started the FBI probe, a point not disputed by the Clinton campaign.

The CFR also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified "to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

Farrell said, "There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and her outlaw server."

Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton's immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.

Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.

"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I'm very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone," she said. "It will prove what I have been saying and it's not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn't change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified."

The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.

Fox News' Matthew Dean contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/source-fbi-team-leading-serious-clinton-server-probe-focusing-on-defense-info/

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #158 on: August 31, 2015, 04:49:01 PM »
why in the mother fccck didn't they bother using the A-team when it came to benghazi or fast/furious?

what the fck is wrong with this country - obama can run guns and give them to criminals, and it's okay... but hilary might be president, so they bring out the a-team NOW?  They only give a shit when it can help them politically?

Spit.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #159 on: September 01, 2015, 10:05:45 AM »
State Department IT staff among those in the dark about Clinton's private email address
Published September 01, 2015
FoxNews.com

Members of the State Department's information technology staff were among those who were unaware that Hillary Clinton was using a private email address during her time as secretary of state, the latest release of messages from Clinton's private server revealed late Monday.

In one email, dated February 27, 2010, an IT worker on the State Department's computer "help desk" sends a message to Clinton's email address inquiring about why one of Clinton's correspondents has been getting a "fatal error" when she tries to send messages to the secretary of state.

Clinton forwarded the email to her top aide, Huma Abedin, asking "Do you know what this is [sic]". Abedin responds, "Ur [sic] email must be back up!!" and explains that a woman named Judith tried to send Clinton an email and called the department's IT team when the message was returned to her.

"They had no idea it was YOU," Abedin writes to Clinton, "just some random address so they emailed. Sorry about that. But regardless, means ur [sic] email must be back!"

Clinton's use of a private email address may have also created logistical problems communicating with State Department aides.

"Well its clearly a state vs outside email issue," wrote Abedin in August 2010, after another aide reported missing some messages from Clinton. "State has been trying to figure it out. So lj is getting all your emazils cause she's on her personal account too."

The State Department released 7,121 pages of emails from Clinton's server late Monday, the fourth and largest release since a federal judge ordered the department to undertake monthly releases of the approximately 55,000 pages of emails Clinton turned over to the State Department last year. The last batch of messages is expected to be released in April.

Clinton and her presidential campaign have repeatedly denied that she inappropriately handled classified information while secretary of state, a question that is currently the subject of a federal investigation.

The latest release also contains messages related to Clinton's iPad, which arrived in June 2010. Aide Philippe Reines informed her that the device had arrived, to which Clinton responded, "That is exciting news -- do you think you can teach me to use it on the flight to Kyev next week?"

Fox News reported in March that Hillary had requested the use of an iPad early in her tenure as secretary of state. However, security and investigative sources told Fox News in March that the device had not been certified as "secure" by the department's technical experts. However, an investigative source told Fox News that Clinton used the device despite the decision.

"I myself am not the most tech savvy person," Clinton wrote in her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices," although I surprised my daughter and my staff by falling in love with my iPad which, I now take everywhere I travel."

Indeed, Despite approving the creation of a relatively complex email system in her home, Clinton seemed puzzled by basic technology. In a July 2010 exchange, Clinton quizzed Reines on how to charge the Apple tablet and update an application.

Reines asks Clinton if she has a wireless Internet connection, and she replies: "I don't know if I have wi-fi. How do I find out?"

Clinton has previously said she used the private server so she would not inconvenience herself by carrying separate devices for work and personal communications wherever she went. However, her use of the iPad as well as her State Department BlackBerry would appear to undercut her defense that she only wanted to use one device at a time.

The emails also contain a joke from Clinton about using multiple email addresses on her server. In a May 2010 email to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, Clinton says Rice should "please feel free to use (whatever my current address may be!) anytime." Fox News, citing independent research data, reported in March that Clinton appeared to have established multiple email addresses for her private use, and possibly the use of her aides, under the domain of “clintonemail.com."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/state-department-it-team-among-those-in-dark-about-clinton-private-email/?intcmp=hpbt3

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #160 on: September 01, 2015, 04:39:53 PM »
I suspect Hillary is not sleeping very well these days.

Sources: Clinton email markings changed to hide classified info
By Catherine Herridge
Published September 01, 2015
FoxNews.com

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hands off her mobile phone after arriving to meet with Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, Netherlands. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, Pool/File)

EXCLUSIVE: At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, Fox News has learned, in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state’s server.

The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources -- one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department. But after a second review by the department's legal office, the designation was switched to "B5" -- also known as "deliberative process," which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release. 

The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content "down a deep black hole."

According to recent congressional testimony, at least one of the lawyers in the office where the changes were made is Catherine “Kate” Duval, who now handles the release of documents to the Benghazi select committee and once worked for the same firm as Clinton's private attorney David Kendall.

Fox News is told there were internal department complaints that Duval, and a second lawyer also linked to Kendall, gave at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest during the email review. A State Department spokesman did not dispute the basic facts of the incident, confirming to Fox News the disagreement over the four classified emails as well as the internal complaints. But the spokesman said the concerns were unfounded.

The whistleblowers told intelligence community officials that they did not agree with the B5 changes, and the changes had the effect of shielding the full extent of classified content on the server. The incident was referenced in a Washington Times report mid-August, but this is the first time fuller details have been available. Because the emails are now marked B5, or deliberative, it is impossible to know the content and relevance to the congressional and FBI investigations.

The internal State Department disagreement was so significant that it rose to the level of Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who is deeply involved in the email controversy, as Clinton's server arrangement required his formal signoff or tacit approval. Asked who signed off on the private server on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, "I personally don't know."

Conservative group Judicial Watch, which has more than a dozen civil suits in federal courts, is now seeking a deposition of Kennedy in a case scrutinizing Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s controversial status as a special government employee (SGE). “All these issues fall under his responsibility,” Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell said.

Asked to respond to the allegations, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “the Department has complete confidence that its attorneys -- who are almost exclusively career Department lawyers -- perform to the highest professional and ethical standards, including in connection with the review and release of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” A State Department official added that the lawyers do not have the final say on the codes, emphasizing it is a “multi-step review.”

On the appearance of a conflict of interest, Kirby defended Duval as “an exceptional professional and has the Department's utmost confidence … No one at the Department should, in addition to this burden, have her integrity or her excellent work ethic impugned.”  And on the connection to Clinton attorney Kendall, “the mere fact of working at a firm does not itself constitute a conflict of interest.  This is a large firm, and we are not aware that any counsel working on Clinton-related matters at the Department did so prior to joining the Department.”

A search of this week’s 7,000-page release found 694 emails with the B5 coding, about 10 percent of the total.

Fox News’ Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/sources-clinton-email-markings-changed-to-hide-contents-shielding-extent/?intcmp=hpbt2

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #161 on: September 02, 2015, 12:31:26 PM »
Clinton, using private server, wrote and sent e-mails now deemed classified
By Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman
September 1, 2015

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office, they could complicate her efforts to move beyond the political fallout from the controversy. They suggest that her role in distributing sensitive material via her private e-mail system went beyond receiving notes written by others, and appears to contradict earlier public statements in which she denied sending or receiving e-mails containing classified information.

The classified e-mails, contained in thousands of pages of electronic correspondence that the State Department has released, stood out because of the heavy markings blocking out sentences and, in some cases, entire messages.

The State Department officials who redacted the material cited national security as the reason for blocking it from public view.

Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, was one of about four dozen State Department officials whose e-mails were redacted because of national security concerns, according to a Washington Post review. Those officials included top aides such as Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills, some of whom would be likely to fill out senior roles in a Clinton administration. All told, 188 of the e-mails the State Department has released contain classified material.

The extent of the redactions in e-mails sent by Clinton and others, including ambassadors and career Foreign Service officers, points to a broader pattern that has alarmed intelligence officials in which sensitive information has been circulated on non-secure systems. Another worry is that Clinton aides further spread sensitive information by forwarding government e-mails to Clinton’s private account.

But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server has become an issue for her campaign.

The intelligence community’s inspector general had previously identified four e-mails out of a sample of 40 that had been sent on her server and contained classified information, including two that involved top-secret information. In those cases, however, people who have reviewed the e-mails said that Clinton did not write them.

The FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s e-mail setup may have compromised national security information. Officials have said that Clinton is not a target of the inquiry.

Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said the heavy redactions in some of Clinton’s e-mails had been expected.

“This has been the case in previous releases and may well be the case in subsequent ones,” he said. “It is not surprising given the sheer volume of intelligence community lawyers now involved in the review of these e-mails.”

Merrill pointed to “competing assessments among the various agencies about what should and shouldn’t be redacted.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby said that “classification is not always a black-and-white, binary judgment. Responsible people can draw different conclusions.”

But the presence of classified information in e-mails Clinton wrote appears to contradict her assurances that she sent no such material.

“I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material, and I’m very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by the everyone,” she said last week during a Democratic Party meeting in Minneapolis. She said that government officials may now be making different determinations after the fact, but “it does not change the fact that I did not send, nor receive, material marked classified.”

In December 2014, Clinton turned over to the State Department more than 30,000 e-mails she had sent and received during her tenure as secretary. The agency is reviewing and preparing them for public release. A judge has ordered the department to release the e-mails on a rolling basis, completing the process by January. The State Department said Monday that it has released about 25 percent of the archive.

The sensitivity of the redacted information in Clinton’s e-mails is not publicly known. Government officials who have seen some of the correspondence say the conversations are generally benign. Some discuss classified programs or topics that have become well-known through public reporting, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe classified information.

One e-mail Clinton wrote in October 2009 was addressed to former senator George J. Mitchell (D-Maine), who was a special envoy for peace in the Middle East. The entire message, as released by the State Department, is blacked out and tagged with a designation noting that the information was classified. The only part now public is Clinton’s opening: “George . . . .”

Another note went from Clinton to Melanne Verveer, who was ambassador for global women’s issues, on Dec. 9, 2010. It was entirely withheld from release. The subject line reads, “Re: latest . . .,” with the rest redacted, making it impossible to discern the topic of the exchange.

Like other e-mails, it was withheld based on State Department reviewers’ conclusion that it contained “foreign government information” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

The e-mails offer hints that Clinton aides were attuned to the need to handle some information with care in more secure settings.

Sullivan e-mailed Clinton a day before Christmas Eve in 2010, for instance, referring to “some interesting reports from the Pal side” that had been passed along from a State Department diplomat, presumably referring to Palestinians. Sullivan suggested a discussion “if you have a moment to talk secure.”

Some of the classified e-mails were written by top aides, as well.

Sullivan in a December 2010 note described for Clinton the results of two phone calls — one in which Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s representative to the United Nations, called a top State Department official. The details provided by Sullivan, a campaign adviser widely considered a potential national security adviser if Clinton is elected, were withheld from public view.

In several exchanges, Verveer forwarded Clinton accounts of confidential reports from Foreign Service officers giving updates from their posts. She shared long notes from the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh describing what he learned in a private dinner with senior officials in that country amid a major embezzlement scandal. Most of those messages were redacted.

“Maybe more than you want to know,” Verveer writes Clinton in one note titled, “Re: dinner with Gowher.” The reference is to Gowher Rizvi, international affairs adviser to Bangladesh’s prime minister.

Verveer, now the director of a women’s institute at Georgetown University, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-wrote-classified-e-mails-sent-using-private-server/2015/09/01/5d456616-50bd-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #162 on: September 02, 2015, 01:35:32 PM »
hilary is a fcking criminal, but i don't think they can prove she knowingly broke any laws here.

same way everyone winked and giggled about bush deleting emails, about the tomfoolery with reagan forgetting about sending arms...


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #163 on: September 03, 2015, 04:13:59 PM »
Staffer who worked on Clinton’s private e-mail server faces subpoena
By Carol D. Leonnig and Tom Hamburger
September 2, 2015

A former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server tried this week to fend off a subpoena to testify before Congress, saying he would assert his constitutional right not to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself.

The move by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, came in a Monday letter from his lawyer to the House panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The letter cited the ongoing FBI inquiry into the security of Clinton’s e-mail system, and it quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which justices described the Fifth Amendment as protecting “innocent men . . . ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ”

The FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s system — in which she exclusively used private e-mail for her work as secretary of state — may have jeopardized sensitive national security information.

Thousands of e-mails that have been released by the State Department as part of a public records lawsuit show Clinton herself writing at least six e-mails containing information that has since been deemed classified. Large portions of those e-mails were redacted before their release, on the argument that their publication could harm national security.

“While we understand that Mr. Pagliano’s response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client’s right to invoke the protections of the Constitution,” his attorney, Mark MacDougall, wrote.

Two other Senate committees have contacted Pagliano in the past week, according to a copy of the letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post. The requests came from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, according to people familiar with the requests.

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Wednesday that it sought to ask Pagliano about his work for Clinton.

“In response to questions . . . Mr. Pagliano’s legal counsel told the committee yesterday that he would plead the Fifth to any and all questions if he were compelled to testify,” a spokesperson for committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Benghazi committee, had subpoenaed the computer staffer Aug. 11 and ordered that he appear for questioning before the committee Sept. 10. Gowdy also demanded that Pagliano provide documents related to the servers or systems controlled or owned by Clinton from 2009 to 2013.

Pagliano, who worked in the State Department’s information-technology department from May 2009 until February 2013, left the agency when Clinton departed as secretary. He now works for a technology contractor that provides some services to the State Department.

The committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), complained yesterday that Gowdy unilaterally issued the subpoena. He said the subpoena of a low-level aide is one of several signs that Gowdy is using the committee for the political purpose of trying to smear a Democratic presidential candidate.

“Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’s attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, members of Congress and others based on false leaks about the investigation,” Cummings said. “Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort.”

MacDougall declined to comment late Wednesday evening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/staffer-who-worked-on-clintons-private-e-mail-server-faces-subpoena/2015/09/02/8b1e6438-51c2-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #164 on: September 04, 2015, 12:34:54 PM »
32,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server being sold by mystery ‘computer specialist’ for $500,000: report
BY  Adam Edelman     
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Thursday, September 3, 2015

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has come under fire for using a private server to send and receive official emails during her tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat. There have been no reports to date, however, that Clinton’s account was hacked.

More than 30,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server have been put up for sale, a new bombshell report claims.

RadarOnline.com reported Thursday that a “a person claiming to be a computer specialist” is asking for $500,000 for 32,000 emails from the former secretary of state’s private server.

“Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box,” a source told the entertainment and gossip website.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton has come under fire for using a private server to send and receive official emails during her tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat.

The 2016 Democratic front-runner has repeatedly claimed she never sent or received any classified material on the private server. She has said that she deleted thousands of non-work-related emails from the account.

The State Department is examining the remaining emails and releasing them to the public in small troves.

For the emails to be up for sale on the black market, a hacker would have, presumably, had to have extracted them at some point from Clinton’s account or from the account of someone Clinton had emailed with.

To date, there have been no reports that Clinton’s account was hacked.

The email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, was hacked in 2013.
Susan Walsh/AP

The email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, was hacked in 2013.

However, in 2013, a Romanian hacker known on the Internet as “Guccifer” leaked confidential memos written for Clinton by former aide and confidante Sidney Blumenthal.

“Guccifer,” whose real name is Marcel Lazar Lehel, allegedly hacked into Blumenthal’s AOL email account and leaked several messages to a variety of recipients, including gossip sites Gawker and The Smoking Gun.

The hacker reportedly accessed Blumenthal’s correspondence with Clinton dating to 2005, including sensitive foreign policy and intelligence memos shared while Clinton was secretary of state.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/emails-clinton-private-server-sale-report-article-1.2347762

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #165 on: September 04, 2015, 02:20:23 PM »
32,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server being sold by mystery ‘computer specialist’ for $500,000: report
BY  Adam Edelman     
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Thursday, September 3, 2015

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has come under fire for using a private server to send and receive official emails during her tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat. There have been no reports to date, however, that Clinton’s account was hacked.

More than 30,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server have been put up for sale, a new bombshell report claims.

RadarOnline.com reported Thursday that a “a person claiming to be a computer specialist” is asking for $500,000 for 32,000 emails from the former secretary of state’s private server.

“Hillary or someone from her camp erased the outbox containing her emails, but forgot to erase the emails that were in her sent box,” a source told the entertainment and gossip website.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clinton has come under fire for using a private server to send and receive official emails during her tenure as the nation’s chief diplomat.

The 2016 Democratic front-runner has repeatedly claimed she never sent or received any classified material on the private server. She has said that she deleted thousands of non-work-related emails from the account.

The State Department is examining the remaining emails and releasing them to the public in small troves.

For the emails to be up for sale on the black market, a hacker would have, presumably, had to have extracted them at some point from Clinton’s account or from the account of someone Clinton had emailed with.

To date, there have been no reports that Clinton’s account was hacked.

The email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, was hacked in 2013.
Susan Walsh/AP

The email account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant to former President Bill Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, was hacked in 2013.

However, in 2013, a Romanian hacker known on the Internet as “Guccifer” leaked confidential memos written for Clinton by former aide and confidante Sidney Blumenthal.

“Guccifer,” whose real name is Marcel Lazar Lehel, allegedly hacked into Blumenthal’s AOL email account and leaked several messages to a variety of recipients, including gossip sites Gawker and The Smoking Gun.

The hacker reportedly accessed Blumenthal’s correspondence with Clinton dating to 2005, including sensitive foreign policy and intelligence memos shared while Clinton was secretary of state.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/emails-clinton-private-server-sale-report-article-1.2347762


Goods article...she's really destroyed herself

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #166 on: September 04, 2015, 03:22:41 PM »
Is that legal?   To see the sec of state's hacked emails?


32,000 emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server being sold by mystery ‘computer specialist’ for $500,000: report


seems like if there's a single word of classified stuff in there, he might be make a very risky move.

or, it's just Bill Clinton selling 32,000 boring emails for a nice profit?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #167 on: September 07, 2015, 01:25:46 PM »
Tom Brokaw: ‘Stunned’ by Clinton’s Answers on Her E-Mail Use
By Jeffrey Meyer
September 6, 2015

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, NBC’s Tom Brokaw strongly criticized Hillary Clinton’s performance during her interview with colleague Andrea Mitchell, specifically her answers to why she decided to use a private e-mail server while Secretary of State.

Brokaw admitted that when Clinton said “I didn't think about the effect of e-mail, I was stunned. I mean, we were deep into the digital age at that point. She's Secretary of State.” 

When pressed by Chuck Todd over whether or not he believed Clinton’s answer, Brokaw maintained that she was “presumptuous” in her decision to use a private server:

I believe she was presumptuous is what I believe. And I think that’s what a lot of people believe she's presumptuous about if I believe it it’s the right way of doing things. But where were the security people at the State Department saying, Madam Secretary, you have to have a secure server over here?

You can have something off to the left, Colin Powell said that he did. But at this point to suggest that as Secretary of State, as much as she had been around, she didn't think about the impact and the possibility of hacking just astonishes me.

Later in the segment, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt suggested Hillary’s answer to a question about the Syrian refugee crisis will be the next problem she has to deal with in her campaign:

[T]he other bad news she has is this refugee crisis. She went out of her way to say I would have advocated for a more robust response when Assad began to kill his people. She’s trying to get ahead of her next problem which is 4 million Syrians are on the march, a million Libyans are on the march.

NBC’s Meet the Press

September 6, 2015

CHUCK TODD: Tom Brokaw, this -- you know, you like to say the unforeseen. Bernie Sanders is the definition of the unforeseen.

TOM BROKAW: Well, my wife reminded me the other day when everybody was saying that Hillary was a lock six months ago. A lot of the women that we know were saying it's over, she's going to win the nomination, we’re going to finally have a woman as president. I always invoke, as you’ve heard me say too often, the UFO theory. Something to remember, however, is the caveat in all of this. Iowa is not a go to the polls and vote state. It's a caucus state, it has to be extremely organized.

A lot of people forget that George Bush, 41, beat Ronald Reagan in effectively what was his home state of Iowa, even though the polls would have shown it the other way. We are talking about a big universe here. We are also talking about Iowa. She's made some huge mistakes in my judgment. And that wonderful interview that Andrea initiated, and typically of Andrea she went right after the issue, when she said, I didn't think about the effect of e-mail, I was stunned. I mean, we were deep into the digital age at that point. She's Secretary of State.

TODD: Do you believe her?

BROKAW: Well, I don't --

TODD: Do you think that she just didn't think about it?

BROKAW: I believe she was presumptuous is what I believe. And I think that’s what a lot of people believe she's presumptuous about if I believe it it’s the right way of doing things. But where were the security people at the State Department saying, Madam Secretary, you have to have a secure server over here? You can have something off to the left, Colin Powell said that he did. But at this point to suggest that as Secretary of State, as much as she had been around, she didn't think about the impact and the possibility of hacking just astonishes me. And I think it takes away from her big argument, I've been there, I’ve done that, I know what I'm doing.



TODD: Hugh, very very quickly here but there's a theory of the case that says, some Clinton people say, you know what, as bad as her poll numbers are, there's a bunch of Republicans that wish they had her bad poll numbers.

HUGH HEWITT: That’s true. I will point out whenever your senior aide is invoking the Fifth Amendment, that's a bad week. And I’ll point out in the Andrea Mitchell interview, as you pointed out to me on my radio show on Friday Chuck, the other bad news she has is this refugee crisis. She went out of her way to say I would have advocated for a more robust response when Assad began to kill his people. She’s trying to get ahead of her next problem which is 4 million Syrians are on the march, a million Libyans are on the march.

TODD: It’s the most important overlooked piece of Andrea's interview is what she said about Syria and trying to break from the president.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-meyer/2015/09/06/tom-brokaw-stunned-clintons-answers-her-e-mail-use#sthash.k5BIEjnp.dpuf

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #168 on: September 07, 2015, 05:42:11 PM »
This whole thing is becoming like water torture

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #169 on: September 08, 2015, 02:29:51 PM »
Intel review backs up finding that Clinton emails had ‘top secret’ information
By  Catherine Herridge
Published September 08, 2015
FoxNews.com

A new review by two intelligence agencies has backed up an earlier conclusion that at least two emails on Hillary Clinton's personal server contained "top secret" information.

The review by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency went back to the original source documents, and follows the finding last month by the intelligence community inspector general that emails on the former secretary of state's system contained information at the highest classification level. This included intelligence on special programs about North Korea's nuclear weapons.

Fox News is told the CIA and NGA did the review because their intelligence was at issue. Only the intelligence agency that gets the information in the first place has the authority to determine its classification.

In both emails, the State Department did not generate the intelligence, and therefore did not have classification authority. The inspector general's August report simply transmitted the classification findings of the CIA and NGA.

In a statement, Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community inspector general, said "the overall classification of those two emails remains unchanged. Both emails were classified when they were created and remain classified now."

The conclusion further undercuts the Clinton campaign's claim that the classification issue amounts to a dispute among agencies.

She said Aug. 18 in Las Vegas, "What you're seeing now is a disagreement between agencies saying, 'you know what, they should have,' and the other saying, 'no, they shouldn't.' That has nothing to do with me."

In the wake of the latest intelligence review, first reported by The New York Times, it appears the Clinton campaign is sticking with that argument.

Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill told the Times, ''Our hope remains that these releases continue without being hampered by bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community, and that the releases continue to be as inclusive and transparent as possible."

Only the Clinton campaign and State Department are challenging the "top secret" classification.

The latest review, where original source material was reviewed, shows there is no daylight between Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III and the agencies that owned the highly classified intelligence found on Clinton's server.

And it could cause problems for the Democratic presidential front-runner as she tries to shake off and downplay questions about the private system.

She told the Associated Press in an interview that "what I did was allowed" and reiterated that she did not "send or receive" information marked classified at the time.

And she again boiled down the debate to a dispute among agencies.

"There is always a debate among different agencies about what something should be retroactively (marked classified)," Clinton told the AP. "But at the time, there were none. So I'm going to keep answering the questions and providing the facts so that people can understand better what happened."

Clinton gave her server and thumb drive to the FBI a month ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/08/intel-review-backs-up-finding-that-clinton-emails-had-top-secret-information/?intcmp=hpbt2

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #170 on: September 10, 2015, 10:30:19 AM »
Circling the wagons.

Justice Department rules Hillary Clinton followed law in deleting emails
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
Thursday, September 10, 2015

The Obama administration told a federal court Wednesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was within her legal rights to use of her own email account, to take the messages with her when she left office and to be the one deciding which of those messages are government records that should be returned.

In the most complete legal defense of Mrs. Clinton, Justice Department lawyers insisted they not only have no obligation, but no power, to go back and demand the former top diplomat turn over any documents she hasn’t already given — and neither, they said, can the court order that.

The defense came as part of a legal filing telling a judge why the administration shouldn’t be required to order Mrs. Clinton and her top aides to preserve all of their emails.

“There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the administration lawyers argued. “Under policies issued by both the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

The legal brief said that means employees are required to “review each message, identify its value and either delete it or move it to a record-keeping system.”

It’s unclear whether Mrs. Clinton’s review process, which she said involved her lawyers making determinations, qualifies.

Judicial Watch, which had at least 16 active open-records lawsuits against the State Department seeking emails from Mrs. Clinton or her top aides, said the administration is ignoring its own guidelines in trying to clear Mrs. Clinton.

“Indeed, the State Department’s own rules specify that personal records of a departing presidential appointee may not be removed from the government until the State Department ‘records officer in cooperation with the S/ES or appropriate administrative office’ approves of the removal, a process which ‘generally requires a hands-on examination of the materials,’ ” Judicial Watch said in a reply brief.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #171 on: September 10, 2015, 10:31:40 AM »
Ed Klein: Hillary Adviser Urges Her to Cut a Deal on Email Scandal

Image: Ed Klein: Hillary Adviser Urges Her to Cut a Deal on Email Scandal (Wire Services)
By Greg Richter   
Tuesday, 08 Sep 2015

A longtime adviser to Hillary Clinton is urging her to hire outside legal counsel and look into cutting a deal over the email scandal currently dogging her presidential campaign, Ed Klein reports.

Klein said the adviser told him that Clinton needs to act quickly because, contrary to reports that the FBI probe into her use of a private email server may drag on for months, the investigation may actually wrap up by year's end.

The New York Times is reporting that Clinton received top-secret emails on her unsecured, privately maintained server she used as secretary of state. She has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified material, though she later amended that material that was "marked" classified.

"Hillary needs counsel to let Congress, the Justice Department, the FBI, and all the authorities involved know that she's taking this very seriously," the adviser told Klein. "And she needs to get some discovery as to where the investigation is going so that she can make plans how to deal with it."

Joking about her email problem and acting as though it is a conspiracy by her political enemies is hurting her with prosecutors, the adviser said.

The adviser said he pointed out that former CIA directors David Petraeus and John Deutch each avoided criminal charges by pleading guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling classified material. But Hillary Clinton responded that neither of them was running for president. She fears any admission of guilt would kill her chances of being elected.

Bryan Pagliano, a State Department IT professional hired privately by Clinton to set up her private server, has invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress, and Klein said Pagliano could end up being the key to forcing Clinton to make a plea deal.

Pagliano is not a member of the Clinton's inner circle and won't be as willing to fall on the sword for her as someone such as her aides Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin, Klein told Hannity.

Klein said he expects Clinton to make a plea deal and quit the race, leaving space for Vice President Joe Biden, who is considering a run.

Though Biden has said he isn't sure he has the emotional energy to run following the death in May of his son, Beau, Klein said Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is putting Biden in touch with psychotherapists in an effort to get him in the mental space to run.

"The Joe Biden previous to his son's death was a laughingstock among many, many people" because of his frequent gaffes, Klein said. "Now, suddenly there's a huge outpouring of sympathy for the guy while Hillary is going down, down, down."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ed-klein-hillary-clinton-deal-email/2015/09/08/id/678624/#ixzz3lMFwrErN

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #172 on: September 10, 2015, 11:14:22 AM »
Justice Department rules Hillary Clinton followed law in deleting emails


that settles that.

To call her a criminal now is a conspiracy theory.  Even if she is guilty as shit.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #173 on: September 10, 2015, 11:15:13 AM »
Former Clinton IT staffer to lawmakers: No testimony without immunity
By RACHAEL BADE
Updated 09/09/15

Hillary Clinton’s former IT staffer who is asserting his Fifth Amendment right not to answer self-incriminating questions rejected two Senate chairmen’s request for sneak peek at what he’d say if given immunity.

In a Wednesday letter obtained by POLITICO, Bryan Pagliano’s lawyer Mark MacDougall told Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that he would give no such preliminary overview, known in legal terms as a proffer. Both chairmen hoped to get a better sense of what Pagliano knew about Clinton’s homebrew server — which he set up in 2009 before she headed to the State Department.

But MacDougall, an attorney at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, said such an exploratory discussion of what Pagliano knew had no basis in law and could open up his client to accusations that he “waived his right” to avoid self incrimination.

“Members of congressional committees and their lawyers have lately taken an expansive view of what constitutes a waiver by an individual citizen of his or her right under the Fifth Amendment,” he wrote. “Any ‘proffer session’ or other disclosure by Mr. Pagliano — or his lawyers acting on his behalf — of the contents of his possible testimony creates the very practical risk that our client will later be said to have waived his constitutional protections.”

Republicans claimed last year that Lois Lerner, the central figure in the IRS tea party targeting scandal, waived her right when she gave a bold statement declaring her innocence and claiming to have broken no laws — then took the Fifth and refused lawmakers’ questions.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor who now chairs the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said at the time that Lerner could not make statements and then refuse to be questioned on them. Legal experts were divided on the issue, but Lerner was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify.

“We cannot set the stage for such an episode by engaging in the kind of discussion with the committees’ staff as suggested in your letter,” MacDougall continued in his letter to Grassley and Johnson.

Pagliano is slated to appear before Gowdy’s panel Thursday and plans to take the Fifth.

The two senators several days ago said they wanted to explore the option of giving Pagliano immunity for his testimony after his lawyer said his client would answer no questions from the Hill or the FBI about the server.

The Senators said Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s controversial email server then followed her to the State Department to continue its maintenance, likely has vital information that could help inform their investigations. Gowdy has expressed reservations about granting immunity because it makes it impossible to prosecute the person down the road.

All three lawmakers, however, agree that a proffer would go a long way in helping them decide whether immunity would be worth it, by giving Congress a look at what he’d say.

MacDougall’s letter says the law that gives Congress the ability to grant immunity doesn’t say anything about such a proffer being required, arguing that there is “no statutory or practical basis" for such testimony previews.

MacDougall also said in the letter that he did not ask any Congressional committees for immunity, but “in the event that any committee of the Congress” does authorize such a judicial order, “Mr. Pagliano will, of course, comply with such an order.”

First, though, he noted that they’d have to get approval from the two-thirds of the committee or a majority of either chamber. But they haven’t yet, he added, calling such talks of immunity “highly speculative” at the present.

“Given the plain language of the governing statute, and in the absence of any facts to suggest that an order of immunity may be issued to our client by a U.S. district court any time soon, there is no basis for a ‘proffer session’ or similar extra-legal exercise with the committees’ staff,” the letter said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/paglia-no-proffer-hillary-clinton-emails-213475#ixzz3lMQlYkLk

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Is Hillary Hiding Something
« Reply #174 on: September 15, 2015, 12:57:52 PM »
State Dept. concedes ‘gaps’ in Clinton emails; contradiction could result in perjury charge
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Monday, September 14, 2015

The emails former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton turned back over to the government last year contained “gaps,” according to internal department messages evaluating her production.

Mrs. Clinton took office on Jan. 21, 2009, but the first message she turned back over to the department was dated March 18, and the earliest-dated message she herself sent was on April 13, or nearly three months into her time in office, according to a message obtained through an open records request by Judicial Watch, which released it Monday.

Mrs. Clinton has said she continued using a previous account she’d used during her time as a senator for business at the beginning of her time as secretary, but the differing dates between the first email received and the first sent raise still more questions.

The revelation of the gap comes even as the legal situation grows more complicated.

Two Senate committee chairmen pushed Monday to try to find out just how deeply the Justice Department’s investigation into the Clinton email server has gone, as the two senators tried to figure out ways of getting Bryan Pagliano, the tech staffer who helped set up her email server at her home in New York, to spill what he knows.

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson asked the government to say whether it would object to a “proffer” session between the senators and Mr. Pagliano, where he could detail, off the record, what he knows without having to worry about it being used against him in a prosecution.

Meanwhile, the State Department met with more resistance from the myriad groups who have sued to pry loose emails from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, and who told a federal court Monday they don’t want to see the proceedings centralized in a single judge.

“State should have anticipated many years ago that it would experience an increase in [Freedom of Information Act] requests for records about Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, and planned accordingly. Yet apparently nothing was done at any time in the last six years to prepare for this highly foreseeable expense, and state now relies on its own failure to prepare as justification to delay complying with its obligations under FOIA,” Jason Leopold, a journalist whose case has prompted the ongoing release of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, said in a court filing made by his lawyer.

Mrs. Clinton declined to use the State Department’s regular email system during her time in office, instead setting up a server at her home and using an account on that server. Many of her top aides also used personal accounts or accounts on the server Mrs. Clinton kept.

Mrs. Clinton says she didn’t break any laws, though the State Department and at least one federal judge have said she violated policy. And the use of non-State.gov accounts has shielded much of the information from subpoenas, congressional inquiries and open records requests — until now.

The State Department would like to shield them a little longer, having asked the federal district court to consolidate more than 30 search lawsuits that have been filed.

Several judges have already indicated they’ll object to that, however, and have turned down delay requests in the meantime. The judges are also pushing the State Department to be more forthcoming in how many emails it is sitting on from Mrs. Clinton’s aides.

The revelation of a possible email gap in Mrs. Clinton’s own records came out of the State Department’s response to one of the open records cases.

According to Eric F. Stein, a State Department official who wrote the evaluation of Mrs. Clinton’s messages, there were “gaps” of several weeks at the beginning and end of her records.

For example, the last message she turned over was dated on her last day in office, Feb. 1, 2013, and it came from Cheryl Mills, one of her top aides. But the last message Mrs. Clinton herself sent and turned over was dated Dec. 30, 2012, a month before she left office.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the email gap, but the State Department, in a statement, said Mr. Stein’s evaluation was later proved wrong and the department found emails from Mrs. Clinton’s last days in office, so there is no gap then.

“We are not aware of any gaps in the Clinton email set, with the exception of the first few months of her tenure when Sec. Clinton used a different email account that she advised she no longer has access to,” the department said. “There is no ‘gap’ in Secretary Clinton’s sent messages from … December 2012 through the end of January 2013. Upon review, the department has many messages sent by Secretary Clinton during that period, including messages that appear to have been produced directly from her ‘sent’ mailbox. Future document releases will include emails from this time period.”

Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has filed 20 separate open records lawsuits demanding release of emails from Mrs. Clinton or her aides, said the gaps could contradict Mrs. Clinton’s assertion, under penalty of perjury, when she said she returned all work-related emails that were on the server she kept at her New York home.

“The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have taken their cover-up of the email scandal too far,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “I suspect that federal courts will want more information, under oath, about the issues raised in these incredible documents.”

The emails obtained by Judicial Watch give more details about the documents Mrs. Clinton turned over — 55,000 printed pages, divided into 12 boxes.

One March 23, 2015, a letter to Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer, David E. Kendall, detailed the department’s early thoughts about the documents.

The State Department asked that any of the emails still in electronic format be preserved, warned that some of the documents could be deemed classified and said Mrs. Clinton would need permission before releasing any of the documents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/state-dept-cites-gaps-hillary-clinton-email-record/?page=2