Hillary Answers Judicial Watch Under Oath – “Does Not Recall” Most Of Her Tenure As Secretary Of State

– Hillary Answers Judicial Watch Under Oath – “Does Not Recall” Most Of Her Tenure As Secretary Of State:

Back in August, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch the right to ask 25 questions of Hillary Clinton about the creation of her private email server which she was required to answer under oath (we wrote about it here).  This morning Hillary filed her response to those 25 questions which can be best summarized by the following stats:

Occurrences of the phrase “Does Not Recall“:  20

Occurrences of the word “Object” or “Objection“:  84

To summarize the 23-page response, Hillary “does not recall” the majority of her tenure as Secretary of State and “objects” to everything that she does recall.

Another phrase that occurs throughout the document, well at least in response to the questions that she actually decided to answer, implies that she was under the illusion that all of her emails subject to FOIA requests would be captured on the email systems of her staffers who actually decided to follow the law and use “state.gov accounts.”

“…her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.”

Isn’t it ironic that Hillary recognizes the legal basis for using “state.gov” accounts but then says that she “does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail.”  Of course, FOIA requests are such uncommon things…why should she expect to receive one?  The blatant disregard for maintaining federal records, in and of itself, is just astonishing.

Moreover, what about emails that Hillary sent to people outside of the State Department?  Did she not send any “work-related” emails to people outside the government?

In response to a question on whether Hillary’s 30,000 “personal emails” were retained, Hillary said she did not think they were kept but denied “any personal knowledge about the details” of their deletion.

“She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.”

So we’re supposed to honestly believe that some rogue staffer or techie unilaterally decided to delete 30,000 emails belonging to the former Secretary of State of the United States of America without first asking her permission to do so?  Really?

While the whole document is a total farce, here is a list of a couple of the questions to which Hillary actually replied:

Question:  After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

Response:  Secretary Clinton does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail.  She understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.

Question:  During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

Response:  Secretary Clinton understood that e-mail she sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA.  She further understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.

Question:  During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

Response:  Secretary Clinton does not recall specifically informing the State Department’s records management personnel about her use of her clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business; she did openly communicate via her clintonemail.com account with many people in the State Department.  Secretary Clinton does not recall interacting with Clarence Finney or employees of the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records.

Question:  In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.”  Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?”  Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry.  A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

Response:  Secretary Clinton recalls that her November 13, 2010 e-mail exchange with Huma Abedin attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories was triggered by a problem with the State Department’s telephone system.  When Secretary Clinton wrote, “This is not a good system,” she was referring to the way in which the State Department would notify her of telephone calls.  Secretary Clinton does not recall what precisely she meant by the words “address” or “device.”  To the best of her recollection, she meant that she was willing to use a State Department e-mail account or device if it would resolve the problems with receiving telephone calls, so long as her personal e-mails with family and friends would not be accessible to the State Department.  Following this e-mail exchange, the State Department changed the way in which it notified Secretary Clinton of telephone calls, resolving the problem that triggered this e-mail.

Question:  After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit?  If not, why not?

Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 21 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering after she left office whether she could alter, destroy, disclose, or use e-mails concerning official State Department business.  Secretary Clinton further refers Plaintiff to her Response to Interrogatory No. 22.

Question:  In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.”  After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used?  If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used?  A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 22 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall altering, destroying, disclosing, or using any e-mails related to official State Department business from her tenure as Secretary of State in her clintonemail.com account or instructing anyone else to do so after she left office and before her attorneys reviewed the e-mails in her clintonemail.com e-mail account in response to the State Department’s request.

Question:  After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed?  If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 23 as outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that it was her expectation that all of her work-related and potentially work-related e-mail then in her custody would be provided to the State Department in response to its request.  Secretary Clinton believes that her attorneys retained copies of the e-mails provided to the State Department in December 2014, but she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.  Secretary Clinton decided that, once her work-related and potentially work-related e-mails were provided to the State Department, she had no reason to keep her personal e-mails, which did not relate to official State Department business.  She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.

The complete court document can be viewed here:

PayPal: Donate in USD
PayPal: Donate in EUR
PayPal: Donate in GBP