|
October 14, 2016: This Week's Headlines
|
|
|
|
|
Special Edition: Hillary Clinton Responds Under Oath
We have released the responses under
oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding her email
practices, and we bring them to you in their entirety in this Special
Edition of Weekly Update.
You will see that she was neither responsive nor credible. I will note,
however, that in a relatively brief document the words “object” or
“objection” appear 84 times. The words “does not recall” appear 20
times.
Her
responses are preceded by eight “General Objections” and two
“Objections to Definitions.” Her responses to 21 individual questions
begin with either “Secretary Clinton objects” [to this interrogatory] or
“Secretary Clinton does not recall.”
It
is clear that her strategy in handling this court-ordered deposition is
of a kind with her stonewalling and obfuscation at every step of this
investigation.
We submitted 25 questions on August 30 to Clinton as ordered by
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Those questions and her
responses come in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
before Judge Sullivan. It was first filed in September 2013 seeking
records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former
deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Judicial Watch has previously taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.
Here is the full text of her responses as filed with the court:
NON-PARTY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to the Court’s August 19, 2016 order and Rule 33 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Non-Party Hillary Rodham Clinton hereby
responds to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories dated August 30, 2016. The
General Objections and the Objections to the Definitions set forth below
are incorporated into each of the specific responses that follow. Any
specific objections are in addition to the General Objections and
Objections to the Definitions, and failure to reiterate a General
Objection or Objection to the Definitions does not constitute a waiver
of that or any other objection.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
-
Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that any
discovery of Secretary Clinton is unwarranted in this case, for the
reasons set forth in Secretary Clinton’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John
Bentel (Dkt. #102) and Surreply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John
Bentel (Dkt. #109), and as stated by Secretary Clinton’s counsel during
the Court hearing on July 18, 2016. Secretary Clinton will answer the
Interrogatories notwithstanding this objection, subject to the other
objections stated herein.
-
Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request
information outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case. The
Court permitted discovery of Secretary Clinton on the topics of “the
purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com
system for State Department business,” as well as “the State
Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that
potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s
e-mails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject
of this action.” Dkt. #124, at 14, 19 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories insofar as
they seek non-privileged information related to those topics.
-
Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request
information relating to events that occurred, or actions taken by
Secretary Clinton, after her tenure as Secretary of State. Such
post-tenure actions or events are not within the scope of the permitted
topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.
-
Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about Secretary Clinton’s use of her clintonemail.com
account to send and receive e-mails that were personal in nature, as
such use is not within the scope of the permitted topics set forth in
General Objection No. 2. Secretary Clinton will construe the
Interrogatories to ask only about her use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails related to State Department business.
- Secretary
Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request
information about management, retention, and/or preservation of federal
records. This action arises under FOIA, which does not govern
management, retention, or preservation of federal records.
See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,
445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980). Accordingly, management, retention, and/or
preservation of federal records are not within the scope of the
permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.
- Secretary
Clinton objects to Instruction No. 1 insofar as it purports to require
Secretary Clinton to provide information that is not within her personal
knowledge. The purpose of the limited discovery permitted by the Court
is to obtain Secretary Clinton’s “personal knowledge of her purpose in
using the [clintonemail.com] system.” Dkt. #124, at 16; see also id.
at (directing Plaintiff “to propound questions that are relevant to
Secretary Clinton’s unique first-hand knowledge”). Secretary Clinton is
answering these Interrogatories based on her direct personal knowledge.
She is not undertaking to provide information known only to other
persons, including but not limited to her attorneys, representatives,
persons acting under, by, or through her, or subject to her control or
supervision, or other persons acting on her behalf.
-
Secretary Clinton objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that
they call for the production of information that is privileged or
otherwise protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the
work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection,
or immunity. Secretary Clinton will respond only to the extent
privileged or otherwise protected information is not required and to the
extent that the Interrogatory is not otherwise objectionable.
- Secretary
Clinton objects to Instruction No. 5 insofar as it purports to require
Secretary Clinton to identify the factual and legal basis for a claim of
privilege. Secretary Clinton is not providing herewith a privilege log.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
-
Secretary Clinton objects to the definition of “Clintonemail.com email
system” insofar as it refers to e-mail system(s), server(s),
provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com
e-mail account after her tenure as Secretary of State. Information
concerning the e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and
infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com account after her tenure as Secretary of State is not relevant to the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com
account during her tenure as Secretary of State, and therefore is
outside the scope of the permitted discovery. In answering these
Interrogatories, Secretary Clinton will construe the term
“Clintonemail.com email system” to refer to the e-mail system(s),
server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com e-mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State.
- Secretary
Clinton objects to the definition of “Clintonemail.com account” insofar
as it refers to e-mail addresses used by other individuals ending in
the domain name “clintonemail.com.” In answering these Interrogatories,
Secretary Clinton will construe the term “Clintonemail.com account” to
refer to hdr22@clintonemail.com,
which was the clintonemail.com account used by Secretary Clinton during her tenure.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIE
- Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com
system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was
decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and
when it became operational.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as outside the scope of permitted discovery. The clintonemail.com
system, as that term is defined in the Instructions and subject to
Secretary Clinton’s objection to that definition, consisted of equipment
set up to host e-mail for President Clinton’s staff. Information
regarding the creation of that system, including the reasons for its
creation, is irrelevant to this lawsuit and outside the scope of
permitted discovery. The Court permitted discovery in this case on the
question of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.
” Dkt. #124, at 17 (emphasis added). That question is the subject of Interrogatory No. 2, which is answered below.
- Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com
email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created,
why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself,
who set it up for you.
Response: In the Senate, when Secretary Clinton began using e-mail, she
used a personal e-mail account for both work-related and personal
e-mail. Secretary Clinton decided to transition from the account she
used in her tenure at the Senate to the clintonemail.com
account. She recalls that it was created in early 2009. Secretary
Clinton did not set up the account. Although Secretary Clinton does not
have specific knowledge of the details of the account’s creation, her
best understanding is that one of President Clinton’s aides, Justin
Cooper, set up the account. She decided to use a clintonemail.com account for the purpose of convenience.
-
When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?
Response: Secretary Clinton recalls deciding to use a clintonemail.com
e-mail account to conduct official State Department business in early
2009. She does not recall any specific consultations regarding the
decision to use the clintonemail.com account for official State Department business.
-
Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com
email account to conduct official State Department business and, for
each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g.,
in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means),
persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
Response:
Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 4 insofar as it purports
to request information about communications after her tenure as
Secretary of State, which communications would be irrelevant to the
purpose for the creation and operation of her clintonemail.com
account while she was Secretary of State. Subject to the foregoing
objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall
participating in any communications before or during her tenure as
Secretary of State concerning or relating to her decision to use a clintonemail.com account to conduct official State Department business.
-
In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was
“recommended”
you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department
business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a
personal email account to conduct official State Department business,
who made any such recommendations, and when were any such
recommendations made?
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 5 insofar as it misstates her comments in the 60 Minutes
interview that aired on July 24, 2016. In that interview, she stated
that “it was recommended that [using personal e-mail] would be
convenient.” Subject to that objection, Secretary Clinton states that
former Secretary of State Colin Powell advised her in 2009 about his use
of a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department
business.
-
Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or
did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting
in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com
email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted
with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which
you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was
made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time,
date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by
electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and
content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground
that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted
discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary
Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent it
requests information about communications made to other persons that
were not conveyed to Secretary Clinton. Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not
recall being advised, cautioned, or warned, she does not recall that it
was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any
communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that
her use of a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws.
-
Your
campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted
to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What
factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a
personal email account to conduct official State Department business?
Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management
and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct
official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA
requests.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground
that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted
discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject
to and without waiving that objection, Secretary Clinton states that she
does not recall considering factors other than convenience in deciding
to use a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department
business.
- 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 email was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.
- 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.
- During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com
email account sent or received in the course of conducting official
State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make
those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in
response to FOIA requests?
Response:
Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that it
requests information that is not within the scope of permitted
discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary
Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that the
word “manage” is vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Secretary Clinton states that her practice was to e-mail
State Department staff on their state.gov
e-mail accounts, and Secretary Clinton understood that those e-mails
were preserved in the Department’s recordkeeping systems and available
to the Department in conducting searches in response to FOIA requests.
-
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.
-
During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com
email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so,
identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or
persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 12 insofar as it requests information about requests for access to her clintonemail.com
account that may have been directed to other persons that were not
conveyed to her. Subject to the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton
states that she does not recall State Department personnel asking her
for access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account to search for e-mail responsive to a FOIA request during her tenure as Secretary of State.
-
At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com
email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any
time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you
consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not
have State Department email accounts (i.e.,
“state.gov”
accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or
searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was
your understanding about how such emails would be maintained,
preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the
ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of
permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Secretary
Clinton states that it was her practice in conducting State Department
business to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov
accounts, and she did not consider how e-mails she sent to or received
from persons who did not have State Department e-mail accounts would be
searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests.
-
On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security
Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff,
Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any
unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely
and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting
calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting
with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary
Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.”
Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did
you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com
email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of
the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached
as Exhibit A for your review.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 14 as seeking information
outside the scope of the permitted discovery in this case. The Court’s May 4, 2016 Order
provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13.
-
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.
-
Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30,
2011discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or
State Department email address. In the course of these discussions,
State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are
working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued
BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning
(possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare
two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department
email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be
subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of
Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote,
“You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s
infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a
State-Department
issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around
August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device
and clintonemail.com
email account to conduct official State Department business instead of
replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued
BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer
whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State
Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your
decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for
your review.
Response:
Secretary Clinton does not recall requesting a State Department-issued
Blackberry or a State Department e-mail account in or around August
2011.
-
In
February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo
noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to
compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department
officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to
minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review
Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February
2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com
email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary
Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for
your review.
Response:
Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as outside the scope
of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that
Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity
issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall reviewing
Assistant Secretary Bowell’s Information Memo attached as Exhibit D to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories during her tenure as Secretary of State.
-
On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel
about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted
“recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and
directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department
business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using
your clintonemail.com
email account to conduct official State Department business after June
28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid
doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E
for your review.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 18 as outside
the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order
provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of
“cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Secretary Clinton further
objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on the ground that it mischaracterizes
Secretary Clinton as the sender and author of the June 28, 2011 cable
attached to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as Exhibit E. During Secretary
Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, all cables originating from Main
State ended with the name “CLINTON.” The presence of Secretary
Clinton’s name at the end of the cable was a formality, and it did not
mean that she sent, authored, or reviewed the cable. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that
she does not recall seeing the June 28, 2011 cable attached as Exhibit E
to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories during her tenure as Secretary of State.
- Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as outside
the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order
provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of
“cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Secretary Clinton further
objects to Interrogatory No. 19 insofar as it requests information about
whether Secretary Clinton was advised, cautioned, or warned about
hacking or attempted hacking of her clintonemail.com
e-mail account after her tenure as Secretary of State, which is
irrelevant to the purpose for her creation and operation of the clintonemail.com
account while Secretary of State and therefore outside the scope of
permitted discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being
advised, cautioned, or warned during her tenure as Secretary of State
about hacking or attempted
hacking of her clintonemail.com e-mail account or the server that hosted her clintonemail.com account.
- When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com
email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your
account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you
considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide
against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email
account, why not?
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 20 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. 20 on the ground
that the word “manage” is vague. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall
considering whether to allow the State Department access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account when she was preparing to leave office. She believed that her e-mails with persons with state.gov
e-mail accounts were already captured in the State Department’s
recordkeeping systems. Secretary Clinton does not recall anyone from the
State Department asking her for access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account or asking her to print her work-related e-mails when she was preparing to leave
office.
- 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 emails concerning official State Department business.
Secretary Clinton further refers Plaintiff to her Response to
Interrogatory No. 22.
-
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 email account in response to the State Department’s request.
- 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.
-
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of
Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to
95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they
wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.”
Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you
relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of
these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through
another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
Response:
Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on the ground that it
calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
-
Identify
all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or
relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of
any emails in your clintonemail.com
email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano
about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails
in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in (e.g.,
in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means),
persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the
ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of
permitted discovery for the reasons set forth in General Objection No.
5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the
ground that the word “management” is vague. Secretary Clinton further
objects to Interrogatory No. 25 insofar as it requests information
related to alternate or replacement servers used after Secretary
Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not
recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating
to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any e-mails
in her clintonemail.com email account.
***
We
previously took the sworn testimony of Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl
Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick
Kennedy and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano regarding the
creation and operation of Clinton’s non-government email system.
We plan to depose John Bentel,
the State Department’s former Director of Information Resource
Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”), the office that
handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary, on October 24, 2016.
The
American people now have a little bit more information directly from
Hillary Clinton about her email practices. Our lawyers will be
reviewing the responses closely and we shortly decide our next steps.
In
the meantime, Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to answer many of the questions in
a clear and straightforward manner simply reflects her disdain for the
rule of law.
Until next week...
Tom Fitton President
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment