Good day, deposition fans. If you want to learn the latest on Medusa's email controversy, you're in the right place. Today's topic is the deposition of DOS factotum, Karin Lang, spear carrier for the incompetent DOS, at least during the Clinton maladministration of that department. It would be helpful to most of you to read the deposition introduction by Judicial Watch (JW), which you can access here.
Notice that the deposition transcript itself, plus 500 pages of appended documents can be download through that link.

As usual, this essay will be limited to the deposition itself, not the appended exhibits. Of course, my "unbiased" comments will be interspersed between segment of usually boring testimony. Please note that in the first 3 depositions summarized on c99, that Medusa (aka HRC), has received some nice body shots, but not yet a knockout punch. So, let's dig in:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Highlights of this deposition:
1. witness instructed not to answer 46 questions.
2. witness refused to answer other questions
3. no FOIA instruction of senior staff during HRC's tenure
4. searching of senior staffers' records were done by the senior staffer without oversight.
5. The organization, if such a term is applicable, of the DOS is mind-numbing
6. common refrain: "It wasn't my responsibility and I don't know whose it was"
7. corollary to number 6 [per lawyers' instructions] "and I wouldn't tell you if I did"
8. many opportunities are available to hide record results due to complex DOS procedures
9. there are too many intermediaries involved between receiving a FOIA request and the ultimate response.
10. To this day (June 7, 2016) we only have the say-so of HRC and HA that all records of HRC and HA have been turned over
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Karin Lang is currently the director of the Executive Secretariat staff since July 2015. Prior to that, she worked in the U.S. Embassy to Mexico from July or August 2013 through July 2015.
More about her government resume:

In 2009 I was chief of immigrant visas at the U.S. Consulate in Quanzhou, China. I left that position in 2010. I then spent a year at the National Defense University. And in July 2011 I became Deputy Director of the Office of Japanese Affairs at the Department of State, a position I held until July 2013 when I went to Mexico.

Bureaucracy 101 (sorry to be repetitious, if you've read through the first 3 depositions):

The Executive Secretariat staff coordinates preparation and reviews all briefing materials, memoranda, official correspondence for the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, and the Under Secretaries of State. The Executive Secretariat staff ensures proper records management for the Secretary and these other department principals, retrieval of archived documents for the Secretary and other --and these other senior principals. And the Executive Secretariat staff also advances the Secretary's international travel and staffs his mobile office overseas.

Q:...How large is the office or the staff of the Executive Secretariat staff?
A: It is an office of 47 full-time equivalent positions.... The office is divided into two divisions, the Advance and Staffing Division and the Correspondence and Records Division. The FOIA responsibilities fall into the Correspondence and Records Division. The deputy director of that division is primarily responsible for FOIA. There's also a management analyst in that division who searches for FOIA, is responsible for FOIA. And part-time a third employee assists with FOIA searches. As the director of the office, part of my duties involve processing FOIA requests....Prior to January 2013, the Office of Correspondence and Records within the Executive Secretariat had that responsibility. It was merged with the Secretariat staff in January of 2013.

So a change in FOIA management procedures occurred after HRC departed DOS.

Q: Okay. And between...say January 2009 to January 2013, who was the director of the Correspondence and
Records office?
A: The director of that office was Clarence Finney.
Q: Who is the Deputy Director for that [Correspondence and Records Division]?
A: It is still Clarence Finney.
Q:...Does Mr. Finney directly report to you now?
A: Yes.
Q:...Before the merger, who did Mr. Finney report to?
A: Before the merger, as an office director, Mr. Finney reported to a Deputy Executive Secretary.
Q: Between 2009 and 2013, who was the Deputy Executive Secretary that Mr. Finney reported to?
A:...There were several. In chronological order, starting with January 21st, 2009, Mr. Finney's supervisor, the Deputy Executive
Secretary, was Paul Wohlers....Starting in mid two thousand -- 2009, it was Kin Moy. Starting in mid 2011, it was Pamela Quanrud...Then I believe it was Julieta Noyes.
Q:...That merger took place [of FOIA reporting]... in January of 2013?
A: It was effective January 21st, 2013.
Q:...Who was the Director of the Executive Secretariat staff at that time?
A: Paul Horowitz.

Just a reminder here, for those who haven't discerned the mind-boggling intricacies of DOS bureaucracy, There was an Executive Secretary of the Executive Secretariat AND a director of the Executive Secretariat. Got it? Okay, please explain it to me.

Getting back to the basis of this FOIA-related JW lawsuit:

Q: elated to the FOIA request at issue at this date, is it correct that Judicial Watch sent the FOIA request on May 21st, 2013?
A: Yes.
Q: And the State Department acknowledged and assigned a case number on June 5th, 2013?
A: Yes.
Q: And the case number that was assigned is F-2013-08812?
A: Yes.
Q: Judicial Watch filed a complaint in federal court on September 10, 2013. Is that correct?
A: Yes...I understood the State Department was served on September 17, 2013.

Talk about speedy response time (?):

Q: Is it correct that by letter dated February 12th, 2014, in part the State Department stated that it had completed searches of the following Department of State record systems: The Central Foreign Policy records, the Bureau of Human Resources, the Office of the Executive Secretariat, and the Office of the Legal Advisor?
A: Yes.

So DOS stalled the response to FOIA lawsuit from September 17, 2013 through February 12, 2014--and when they did respond, their response was grossly incomplete. Karin Lang was unable to identify any staffer who responded to JW's FOIA lawsuit--a better bunch of bunglers you could not find in private industry for sure. There are then several pages of testimony relating to department minutiae, which I will not bother to include. But the end result of all this boring bureaucratise
is "I don't know".

Q:...When was the Office of the Executive Secretariat determined to potentially have responsive records?
A: After the case went into litigation...When a case becomes the subject of litigation under the FOIA, it is transferred from
the Statutory Compliance and Research Division, to the Programs and Policies Division. Within the Programs and Policies Division, there is a branch called Litigations and Appeals. So after the State Department was served, noticed that the case had entered litigation, the case was transferred to the Litigations and Appeals branch. That transfer was September 23rd.

More bureaucratic hodgepodge:

Two case analysts were assigned. Similar to the other -- the Compliance and Research Division, when a case comes into the Litigation and Appeals, it will be assigned to one case analyst. In this case it was assigned to two case analysts,
Saffie Goushe and Robert McNeary... When a case enters litigation, the Office of the Legal Advisor becomes involved in consulting with the Litigation and Appeals branch of IPS [Information Programs and Services]...It's not clear that a search was conducted prior to the case going into litigation...The DS-1748 is a State Department form that is used for tasking FOIA searches. It is filled out by the analyst in IPS and typically e-mailed to the relevant offices or bureaus that are to conduct searches. The form DS-1748 itself contains all the basic information about the case and instructions for conducting the search. It also has space for the searchers to fill in the information about who conducted the search, when the search was conducted, which files were searched.

The tasking email, instructing DOS personnel was sent on October 1, 2013 to

the Division of Correspondence and Records within the Executive Secretariat staff.

Some level of accountability in FOIA request handling emerges after pages of bafflegab:

Q: So Mr. Finney determined which offices or divisions should be searched?
A: Yes...he determined that the Office of the Executive Director within the Executive Secretariat should conduct a search. Q:...Mr. Wasser received this task in October of 2013. What did he do once he received that task?
A: He conducted searches in November of 2013.
Q: And what searches did he conduct?
A: He searched the STARS database, the CARS database, the STEPS database...STARS stands for Secretariat tracking and
retrieval system...At the time STARS was the official repository for all memoranda and records of the Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretaries, and Under Secretaries, including briefing material, information memos, action memos, any kind of meeting
preparatory information or official decisions, official correspondence of the Secretary and other department principals. It was at the time the main repository of information coming from the Office of the Secretary and of information going to the Office of the
Secretary...The STARS database was not an e-mail archiving system. However, STARS had the capacity to store a variety of types of media, including e-mails. And there were some e-mails...there are some e-mails stored in STARS.

More about STARS, which hits close to home:

A: The e-mails that made their way into STARS did not do so electronically automatically. They mostly made their way into STARS through what we call out-boxing: any material that is seen by the Secretary and ends up in his or her outbox is generally bundled up by support staff and passed to Correspondence and Records, where it's recorded. Material that has been seen by the Secretary or material that has handwritten notes, for example, by the Secretary.
Q: So somebody would have to print and then file it or place it in the outbox for it to then make its way into STARS?
A: Correct.

From STARS to STEPS:

Q:...You said STEPS was also searched. What does STEPS stands -- stand for?
A: STEPS stood for state telegram electronic processing system. This is a legacy system that is no longer used. STEPS contained telegrams, official cable -- cable telegrams that were sent to or from the department between the department and its -- and its overseas posts.

Emails were not included in STEPS (but they were, by happenstance, as opposed to consistently retained in STARS).

A: CARS stands for cable archiving and retrieval system. Similar to STEPS, it was a legacy system for capturing cable traffic between the department and posts.

This would not include emails.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot department:

Q: Were the top-secret files searched in response to this FOIA request?
A: I don't believe so.

At this point, dear reader, pause to consider what was just communicated. Despite the JW lawsuit, DOS did not search Top Secret files, which means that they did not acknowledge the existence of such files, even if the content of the files was not revealed. Cover-up? Stupidity? Incompetence? Take your pick. (My vote is all three are correct.)

Page 43: Top secret files were not filed in a DOS database. They were (are) hard copies kept by the Office of Correspondence and Records.

Back to Everest:

Q: is Everest another records-management or records-archiving system?
A: Everest is the successor to STARS, yes.
Q: Do you know when Everest started, when it took over for STARS?
A: STARS ceased accepting new entries January 1st, 2015.

So, let's get smart (which is hard to do when attempting to navigate this Byzantine web of intricate "statecraft":

Q: Is SMART [State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Tool Set] another records system?
A: Yes...SMART took the place of all these legacy systems for the archiving of cable traffic between the department and overseas posts. So that's why I said we would no longer search the CARS or STEPS database. Because all that information would be in the Central Foreign Policy files through SMART...SMART has a function that allows a sender to make an e-mail, a record e-mail, that puts it in the central searchable archive. It's done very similar to creating a cable. It's done at a user's desktop.

So, Hillary had at her disposal a ready-made communication apparatus (tool set) which she could have used.

It's a series of essentially clicks and check boxes and drop-down menus...I believe SMART was introduced in the
department in 2009

But HRC's emails would not have been captured by the SMART system"

A: Any office supported by S/ES-IRM is not part of the SMART e-mail system. That includes the Office of the Secretary, the two deputy secretaries, and the under secretaries.

More databases:

RIMS [record information management system] is the database that is searched by IPS.
Q:...So Mr. Wasser, you said he conducted searches of STARS, STEPS, and CARS, in November of 2013. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he search any other databases?
A: No.

Hillary's records have vanished!

A: In November 2013, former Secretary Clinton's e-mails were not in the possession or control of the State Department so could not have been searched in response to a FOIA request.

Another HRC lie re "I promptly turned over my emails..." Page 49:

Q: Why were they not in the possession and control of the State Department?
A: Secretary Clinton turned over her e-mails to the State Department in December of 2014.

This gave Medusa plenty of time to delete "personal" email, all 31,000 of them.

Q: When conducting a search for records responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case between May 21st, 2013, and February 12th, 2014, was a determination made that Mrs. Clinton's e-mails were not under the custody and control of the State Department and, therefore, did not have to be searched in response to this FOIA request?
A: No.

More stonewalling:

Q: So why was it the State Department's position to not search Mrs. Clinton's e-mails because they were -- the State Department thought they were outside the custody and control of it?
A: No one engaged in this FOIA search had awareness of that source of potentially responsive documents during the time period of this FOIA search. The time period that you list between May 21st, 2013, and February 2nd, 2014, no one engaged in this FOIA search had the awareness of that source of potentially responsive documents.

Nobody at DOS was aware of Clinton's private hoard of hidden documents! So, how was that "allowed" when no one, so far deposed, admits to knowing about these elusive records?

Q...Was a determination made that Mrs. Clinton's e-mails would not be potentially responsive to this FOIA request or that they weren't available to the State Department at that time?
A: Neither...The people engaged in the day-to-day activity of searching for records responsive to this request were not aware of that source of potentially responsive documents; therefore, they could not make a determination of whether that source would be responsive or not.

Nobody could find any of Clinton's emails? Really? Did they suppose that she conducted all her business--on paper/ or verbatim? or smoke signals? Did anybody think to ask HRC about the paucity of records emanating from her private world?

A: They were not aware of the existence of e-mails from the former Secretary that could be potentially responsive to this request.

Q:...Did the Office of Correspondence and Records between that time period of January 2009 and February 2013, was it their belief that Mrs. Clinton did not use e-mail for work-related purposes?
A: Yes.
Q: Did that include -- was that -- does that include Mr. Finney?
A: Yes.

Looks like Clarence has some explaining to do: dupe or duplicity, Mr. Finney?

JW is still trying to pin down responsibility for this mess, seemingly getting nowhere:

Q: A specific person. So the Executive 57 Secretary that would have been Dan Smith, followed by Stephen Mull, and then I don't know the names of the individuals that followed within that position. But that -- that Executive Secretary position, would they have been involved in FOIA requests related to e-mails of Mrs. Clinton during that time period?
A: The Executive Secretary is the overall head of the Executive Secretariat, of which the secretariat staff and the former Office of Correspondence and Records is a component part. The Executive Secretary has overall responsibility for that, for the secretariat, but is not involved in the day-to-day work of searching for FOIA.
Q: Would issues related to FOIA requests that involved the Secretary of State rise to the level, not on a day-to-day basis, but when problems arose, to the Executive Secretary position?
A: Occasionally.

Q:...The Office of Correspondence and Records was responsible for processing, storing, archiving Mrs. Clinton's records; wasn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: So they would know what record systems or what systems and how Mrs. Clinton communicated; wouldn't they?
A: The Secretary did not use a State.gov e-mail account.

Finally, after more than one hour of testimony, dodging, and weaving, comes the official DOS acknowledgement that HRC did not use State.gov email!

Q: Did the Office of Correspondence and Records during that time period know that Mrs. Clinton did not use a State.gov e-mail account?
A: Yes...when former Secretary Clinton came to the State Department in early 2009, as part of her transition the question was raised would she have a State.gov e-mail account, and the transition team advised that she would not. Like her predecessor, she would not have an e-mail account...
Q: What offices specifically would have been responsible for asking Mrs. Clinton's transition team if she were to be using a State.gov e-mail account?
A: The Executive Secretary led the transition.
Q: And who was the Executive Secretary at the time?
A: The Executive Secretary at the time was Daniel Smith.

Did the Office of Correspondence and Records follow-up on Clinton's use or non-use of a State.gov account?

A: The Office of Correspondence and Records was in constant communication with the S/ES component that provides IT support to the Secretary and other principals. S/ES-IRM.
Q: So at some point during Mrs. Clinton's tenure, the Office of Correspondence and Records asked S/ES-IRM whether Mrs. Clinton was using a State.gov e-mail account?
A: Yes.

Let's try to simplify this a little, cause it won't be easy: The Executive Secretary of the Executive Secretariat was in charge of the Office of Correspondence and Records, which was headed by Clarence Finney, but Stephen Mull, for Executive Secretay of the Executive Secretariat claimed to have no knowledge of what his underling, Clarence Finney knew about the non-State.gov email. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Mr. Mull's administrative skills.

Page 61:

A: Initially the Office of Correspondence and Records was informed by S/ES-IRM that Secretary
Clinton would not have an e-mail account...
Q: When were they initially informed?
A: Sometime in the time frame of the end of 2008 to early 2009...
Q: Did IRM inform Mr. Finney that Mrs. Clinton would be using an e-mail account, while she was Secretary of State, for work-related purposes?
A: No...when Mrs. Clinton's photo appeared in the media with her using -- appearing to use some sort of a mobile device, Clarence Finney checked with S/ES-IRM to confirm whether or not she still --whether the answer was still that she did not have a State.gov e-mail account.

Mr. Finney did not ask HRC why she was not going to use State.gov email.

Q:...Did Mr. Finney follow up with IRM after that about whether or not Mrs. Clinton was using a State.gov e-mail account?
A: Not that I'm aware.

More amnesia:

Q: Would Mr. Finney have the answer to that question? Would he know who he spoke with?
A: He indicates he does not recall.
Q: When did you speak to Mr. Finney about the testimony you just gave?
A: Over the past two or three weeks preparing for this testimony.

Finney is out of the email mischief?

A: Mr. Finney was not aware of e-mail usage by the former Secretary.
Q: Did Mr. Finney ever receive an e-mail from Mrs. Clinton during that time period?
A: No.
Q: Did Mr. Finney ever send an e-mail to Mrs. Clinton during that time period?
A: No.
Q: Was Mr. Finney ever cc'd on an e-mail either from or to the -- Mrs. Clinton during that time period?
A: No.

Q: During the time period 2013 through the initial response in this request in February of 2014, what did Mr. Finney know about Mrs. Clinton's use of e-mail as it related to FOIA?
A: He was not aware that there was e-mail that would be responsive to FOIA requests.

That's good! The fellow in charge of Records Management, including those of the Secretary (Medusa) knew nothing about emails responsive to FOIA requests, even though he was aware HRC was using email which would not be "captured" by DOS--and he didn't even bother to ask anybody if HRC was holding out?!!!

Q: What did Mr. Finney tell you about the photo and what he thought in light of FOIA requests for Mrs. Clinton's e-mails?
A: He did not see a direct connection between the photo and FOIA requests for Mrs. Clinton's e-mails.

For reference here, there are two IRM's at DOS: one is exclusive to the general department; the other is the domain of the Executive Secretariat: S/ES IRM

Huma Abedin (HA) gets a free pass on email searches:

Q:..In response to this specific FOIA request, between May 21st, 2013, and February 12th, 2014, was Ms. Abedin's e-mail searched for potentially responsive records?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Mr. Finney made the determination that the bureau -- within the Executive Secretariat, the Executive Director's office, the Human Resources office, was the place likely to contain responsive documents.

You can't turn up the evidence, if you don't look for it. Well done, Clarence. I am sure that with your expert performance here, regarding these very serious inquiries, potentially about national security, you were promoted to your post of incompetence according to the Peter Principle.

What records were searched in response to this FOIA inquiry, a topic which I thought had already been covered earlier?

Q: What records did the Executive Director's office -- what record systems were -- what records were searched during that time period?
A: The Human Resources officer within the Executive Director's office maintained hard-copy files of personnel-related matters and searched those files. Human Resources is a subcomponent of the Office of the Executive Director.

Regarding the basic deflection of the search away from HRC and HA, more rope-a-dope:

Q: It was tasked to the Executive Director's office. Were e-mail records of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin potentially within the record systems of the Executive Director?
A: The way the State Department stores e-mails is based on the custodian. So if employees of that office, that Executive Director's office, had exchanged e-mails with Secretary Clinton or Ms. Abedin, it's possible that those e-mails could have resided within their electronic archives, the employees within that office.

Is that clear?

Emails were entirely omitted from the DOS searches in 2013-2014:

A: The Human Resources officer made the determination that the responsive records would be located in the hard-copy personnel files.

Q: What did the case analyst do once they received the DS-1748 from the Executive Secretariat?
A: The IPS case analyst is typically gathering the responses from all the various offices that have been tasked. In this case that would include the Office of the Legal Advisor, the Executive Secretariat, and the Bureau of Human Resources.

The FOIA request Case Analyst can only analyze what he/she is given to analyze:

Q: When the case analyst reviews the information that's returned to the case analyst, does the case analyst do any substantive review of what is provided to the case analyst?
A: The case analyst reviews the documents that are considered potentially responsive documents. The case analyst reviews those documents to determine whether or not they are actually responsive to the request.

Another layer of paint over the so-called transparency of the information retrieval. First the Director of Records managements which records are to be searched, as opposed to searching through all of them, which allows for the first level of deflection. Then the case analyst has extensive opportunity to edit what has been given for review.

But wait! There is at least one more impediment to the quest for knowledge:

A: Then, working with the Office of the Legal Advisor, the litigation case analyst compiled the results...Then the litigation case analyst prepared the response letter to the requester, and the documents were prepared for release... Then the c case is normally closed when the response is provided to the requester.
Q: Was the case closed in this instance?
A: No. Because it was a litigation case.
Q: So what happened? Does the file stay active, what happens?
A: It stays open until the litigation is
resolved.
Q:...Was the litigation resolved shortly thereafter?
A: I believe it was resolved in March of 2014.

DOS figured they "resolved the FOIA case in March 2014 WITHOUT LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT 61,000 EMAILS! Nice job.

Q:...What administrative procedure takes place?
A: It just means that in the software that IPS uses to manage its caseload, the case is closed. Which is important for statistical tracking purposes.
Q:...Is the case file kept for a certain period of time after a case is closed?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know for how long?
A: I'm sorry. I don't have that information.
Q:...You said earlier on in your testimony that a case file was created for this FOIA request when it was received in May 2013.
Does that case file still exist today?
A The case resides in the Freedoms software that IPS uses...I reviewed the Freedoms software case for this [deposition] and various e-mail traffic between individuals working on this FOIA request.

For obvious reasons, this FOIA case was reopened:

Q:... Are you aware that this FOIA litigation was reopened in June of 2015?
A: Yes...When the case was reopened, it was assigned to a litigation analyst, Julia Navarro. She reopened the case and awaited further instruction from the Office of the Legal Advisor.
Q:...After she received instruction from the Office of the Legal Advisor, what did she do?
A: She tasked additional searches per the instructions from the Office of the Legal Advisor in late July 2015...the Bureau of Human Resources, the Office of the Executive Secretariat, the Office of the Legal Advisor, the Office of the Under Secretary for
Management, and the Central Foreign Policy records.
Q:...Were those the same offices that were
tasked initially, the first time around, when the FOIA request was received?
A: The addition was the Office of the Under Secretary For Management.
Q:...Who made the determination that the Office of the Under Secretary for Management may have potentially responsive records?
A: With any case in litigation, the discussion is between the Office of the Legal Advisor and the IPS office.

Trying to pin down DOS responsibility is like trying to get a firm grip on a greased snake:

Q: Who received that tasking within the Office of the Executive Secretariat?
A: Clarence Finney, in late July 2015. He tasked the program assistant in the Office of Correspondence and Records, Kevin Greer. He [Finney] instructed him to search the Huma Abedin State.gov e-mail account. The program assistant and the
S/ES management analyst both participated in these searches. For the State.gov e-mail records of Ms. Mills, Ms. Abedin, the former Human Resources officer Cynthia Motley, and a former senior advisor in the Office of the White House Liaison, Heather Samuelson.
Q: So Mr. Finney did not make the determination where to search.
A: Correct.

I am sure there must be some point to all this minutia, but it escapes me. However, for your reading pleasure, we shall plod onward:

Q Who instructed Mr. Finney to search the State.gov e-mail records of Ms. Mills, Ms. Abedin, Ms. Motley, and Ms. Samuelson?
A I believe it was Ms. Julia Navarro or his branch chief, Susan Weetman.

Why was the first investigation (2013) so incomplete?

Q:...Let's walk back then to the initial processing of the FOIA request. Why were detailed instructions not provided to Mr. Finney as to where to search within the Office of the Executive Secretariat?
A: In general, IPS, when IPS tasks searches to various components within the State Department, State Department practice is that the bureau or office that is tasked, those are the subject-matter experts and are best placed to determine where responsive records are likely to be located... When the supplemental searches were tasked, the instructions to the searching offices had become more specific through the result of discussions between the two parties and the agreement that was reached between the two parties [i.e., JW and DOS].
Q: Was it a keyword search?
A: Yes.

PST searches [sorry, don't know what that acronym represents] were performed on files of HA, CM, Motley, Samuelson

A:...searching PSTs involves indexing them and loading them on a -- what we call a virtual machine. And if they were all loaded at the same time and prepared to be searched at the same time, they could be searched at the same time.
Q: How is a PST file created?
A: I don't have specific information on that.

Q:...While Mr. Finney -- while the office of correspondence and management was responding to FOIA requests, did someone within that office know that Mrs. Clinton's practice to preserve government e-mails was to do so by e-mailing State Department employees on their State.gov e-mail account [between January 2009 to February 2014]?
A: No.

Q: Mrs. Clinton has said, and testimony in this case has been provided, that Mrs. Clinton's recordkeeping process was to e-mail government employees on their dot gov e-mail account. Is the State Department now aware that that was Mrs. Clinton's practice?
A: The State Department is aware that Mrs. Clinton has made those statements.

Currently, how does the DOS view the adequacy of their prior attempts to satisfy FOIA searches:

Q: Now that the State Department is aware that Mrs. Clinton has said that this was her practice, does the State Department believe that their searches in response to this FOIA request, either the initial search, during the initial time period, were sufficient?
A: I'm not a lawyer, so I won't make a legal conclusion.

Q: Does Mr. Finney believe that additional searches should have been conducted because of Mrs. Clinton's statement that her practice was to preserve e-mails by e-mailing State Department employees on a State.gov e-mail account? A: No.

Aha! More records (well at least some of them) turn up! For those who do not know, motions for summary judgments are attempts by the defendant to get civil cases dismissed by alleging the grounds for such suit are meritless.

Q:...After the State Department filed its motion for summary judgment in this case, the State Department informed the court that it located additional sources of documents that originated within the Office of the Secretary that are
reasonably likely to contain records responsive to the plaintiff's request. Do you know what those additional sources of documents are that were located?
A: There were certain files that were electronic files associated with former employees that were in addition to e-mails that were found to be located still in the S/ES-IRM office...They're personal drives, which can contain a variety of information.

Lost or destroyed records identified?

Q: To the State Department's knowledge, since the State Department received the FOIA request at issue in this case, has any potential responsive e-mails of Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin been destroyed or lost?
A: It's not possible to answer that question because on the date that the initial FOIA request was received, there were e-mails from former Secretary Clinton and Ms. Abedin that were not in the possession of the State Department. The State Department is not in a position to say whether e-mails subsequent to that -- e-mails that existed on that date were subsequently lost.

Could those Clinton /Abedin records have been destroyed?

Q: When Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit and it was served on the department, did the department take any steps to ensure that any responsive e-mails of Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin were not destroyed or lost?
A: At the time the case initially went into litigation, the department was not in possession or control of former Secretary Clinton's e-mail collection, so it could not have taken steps regarding those documents.
...Q What steps were taken when Judicial Watch filed its complaint and the State Department was served and aware of the complaint, were any steps taken to ensure that Ms. Abedin's e-mails on the State.gov, her State Department e-mail account, were not destroyed or lost?
A: S/ES-IRM as a matter of practice preserved the e-mails and the -- and the electronic material from Ms. Abedin after she departed the State Department...I don't think S/ES-IRM was specifically informed that this case was in litigation.
Q: If they were not specifically informed, how would they ensure that none of Ms. Abedin's e-mails were destroyed or
lost after litigation began?
A: S/ES-IRM did not destroy or -- did not destroy any of its PSTs in its possession.

Big loophole on length of retention of State.gov electronic records, see question instructed not to be answered page 112.

Q: How many FOIA requests were received, while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, that may have implicated Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin's e-mails?
A: I can't answer that definitively, because that's not the way the State Department keeps data on FOIA.

JW's Attorney finally objects to all the questions the witness was instructed not to answer (page 115)

The State Department, as you probably recall, agreed to this line of questioning. You agreed to the scope of the 30(b)(6). This is language that we jointly proposed to Judge Sullivan. Judge Sullivan approved it. It talks about the processing of FOIA requests that implicate Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin's e-mails, and we are asking questions about that. That is not outside the scope of the 30(b)(6).

The DOS parries the thrust:

So while questions about processing in general are fine, there's no basis for asking about specific FOIA requests other than the one that's at issue in this case.

But the forbidden question is re-asked after a recess during which legal wrangling occurred about Judge Sullivan's orders for the deposition topics allowed to be discussed.

"QUESTION: Do you know of any specific FOIA requests during the time period Mrs. Clinton was in office that may have implicated Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin's e-mails?")
A: Yes.

During HRC's tenure, FOIA requests pertaining to email, as well as all other communications, were handled by the

The Office of Correspondence and Records, which during Secretary Clinton's tenure was an independent office within the Executive Secretariat

Q: How would the FOIA requests came in that implicated Mrs. Abedin's e-mails, how would the State Department go about searching for records potentially responsive to the FOIA request?
A:...In the Office of Correspondence and Records, the director would examine the request and, based on its content, based on the subject matter, make a determination where responsive records would likely be located, and would task it out appropriately based on that determination.

Do you get the feeling that we are on a merry-go-round which we cannot exit? This is an exercise into how many different ways can we stick pins in a pin cushion.

Q:...If that determination was made that Ms. Abedin's e-mail records would be a potential source of potentially responsive records, where would that be tasked? The search -- the search itself, how would -- where would that be tasked?
A: The general policy of the State Department is that current employees are asked to search their own e-mail records.

In other words, there is no independent oversight into which records get examined for FOIA requests pertaining to senior DOS officials.

Q:...Would the Correspondence and Records office have a discussion with Ms. Abedin about how she conducted the searches?
A: Not to my knowledge...

Search loophole confirmed--it is rivaling a Black Hole in DOS--getting bigger all the time, sucking the light out as it grows.

A: Prior to Secretary Kerry, no Secretary of State used a State.gov e-mail address.
Q:...Was Mrs. Clinton ever asked to search her e-mails for potentially responsive records during the time period she was
Secretary of State?
A: No.

The Queen was not challenged about her records submitted responsive to FOIA requests.

Q: While Mrs. Clinton was in office, did IPS have any conversations with any individuals within the Office of the Secretary about a FOIA request or about FOIA requests that came into the department that implicated Mrs. Clinton's e-mails?
A: Not to my knowledge.

Names are named, but they are quite down the power chain:

Q: During that time period, who was the director of IPS?
A:...in January 2009, the director of IPS was Margaret Garfield...For a time there were two acting co-directors of IPS, Charlene Thomas and Alex Galovich...Later in December 2011, Sheryl Walter took over as Director of IPS. She remained Director of IPS until the end of Secretary Clinton's term in 2013.

Now, get your scorecards out, because the genealogy of DOS administration reads like Genesis (sort of). I am not going to bother with the minutiae of who did what when--because none of them had sufficient authority to do anything really meaningful regarding unearthing critical material. For those of you interested, this information can be found from Page 125 to 126. But now a big name:

A: The Assistant Secretary For Administration reports to the Under Secretary for Management.
Q: Who is that person?
A: That person is Patrick Kennedy.

Patrick Kennedy served as Under Secretary for Management all 4 years of Clinton's tenure and he did report directly to Clinton.

Q: During this time period while Mrs. Clinton was in office, did the Correspondence and Records office, were they aware that Ms. Abedin would use a non-State.gov e-mail account for work-related purposes?
A: No.
Q: When did the Correspondence and Records office learn that Ms. Abedin used a non-State.gov e-mail account for work-related purposes?
A: The department sent letters to Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills in March of 2015 seeking information about possible federal records located in non-State.gov accounts.
Q: Why did they send those letters?
A: Based on a desire to determine whether there was information.

Blindness or willful blindness:

Q: During the time period Mrs. Clinton was in office, did the Office of Correspondence and Records ask Ms. Abedin whether she was using a non-State Department e-mail address for work-related purposes?
A: No.
Q: Did the Office of Correspondence and Records ask anyone else within the State Department during that time period if Ms. Abedin was using a non-State Department e-mail account for work-related purposes?
A: No.
Q: Did S/ES-IRM know that Ms. Abedin would use a non-State Department e-mail address to conduct government business during the tenure?
A: Not to my knowledge.

About FOIA training by HRC and HA:

Q: While Mrs. Clinton was in office, was Mrs. Clinton trained with respect to FOIA-related issues?
A: No.
Q: During the time period Mrs. Clinton was in office, was Ms. Abedin trained on FOIA-related issues?
A: No

.

Q: While Mrs. Clinton was in office, was anyone within the -- any employees within the Office of the Secretary trained about managing Ms. Abedin's e-mails for FOIA-related purposes?
A: No.

Q: You said that Ms. Abedin -- if a FOIA request came in that concerned Ms. Abedin's e-mails, that the normal practice was for the individual employee, so Ms. Abedin, to search her e-mails for records responsive to FOIA. How would she know what to do if she weren't trained to do so?
A: The OIG report issued in January of this year [2016] found that there was insufficient training of employees generally in the secretariat regarding FOIA

Q When responding to FOIA requests, did anybody in the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was in office ever ask Mrs. Clinton if she was using a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?
A: No.

Q: Are you aware of any FOIA requests submitted to the State Department between February 2013 and March 2015 that implicated Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin's e-mails?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know approximately how many?
A: As I indicated earlier, the State Department doesn't keep FOIA records in that way.

Q: I'll ask the question again. Besides this specific FOIA request at issue in this case, do you know of any specific FOIA requests received by the department between February 2013 and March 2015 that may implicate Mrs. Clinton's and Ms. Abedin's e-mails?
A: Yes...
Q:...During this time period [between February 2013 and March 2015], because Mrs. Clinton was out of office and so was Ms. Abedin, where were HA's e-mail records located?
A: Ms. Abedin's e-mail records at that point were located in S/ES-IRM from the time she left office.
Q: And they're currently still there?
A: Yes.

Back to who searches what:

A To clarify, S/ES-IRM does not conduct FOIA searches of PSTs. When the Office of Correspondence and Records or at this point the Office of the Secretariat staff needs to conduct a search of those electronic records, the secretariat
staff contacts S/ES-IRM to make that PST available for searching.

Q: Within the records that were reviewed, did the State Department see a non-State.gov e-mail address for Ms. Abedin?
A: I have no basis for responding to that question.

Looking at email addresses:

Q: Would a reviewer review the e-mail addresses on the page to ensure no redactions were necessary?
A: Yes.
Q: During that review process, did the State Department see a non-State.gov e-mail account for Ms. Abedin?

"We were too busy, couldn't be bothered", or to put this into bureaucratese:

A: The way that IPS maintains its files, it's not possible to give a definitive answer to that question, because it would require looking in each individual FOIA response during that time frame and each individual document that was provided in response to a FOIA request to check for redactions.

However, Clarence Finney was able to look at emails in unredacted form...but not necessarily the email addresses. The IPS was responsible for

examining those documents for possible redactions or exemptions under the FOIA.

Multiple individuals at IPS would also have been able to see unredacted emails.

Q: Do you know if any of those individuals that reviewed the records discussed whether or not they -- whether they saw a non-State.gov e-mail account for Ms. Abedin or Ms. Mills?
A: No.

More about IPS reviewers:

Reviewers within IPS are retired foreign service officers who are hired to -- with specific subject-matter knowledge certified by various bureaus and offices to review subject matter that is specific to their area of experience.
Those retired foreign service officers conduct what we call a two-level review, a line-by-line review of each responsive
document, to determine the releaseability under the FOIA, make redactions. The first of them conducts a review, and then the second of them conducts a supervisory review, a quality control check...The case analyst receive the unredacted versions from the bureau or office that did the search.

More about redactions:

Q: Then they [case analysts] would task those records out to the former foreign service officer, or retired foreign service officers, and then the records would be sent back to the case analyst?
A: Correct.
Q: When they were sent back would they be in redacted or unredacted forms?
A: The redactions at that point would already have been done. In some cases the redactions may need to be consulted with the bureau that originated the documents. So the case analyst would sort of serve as a liaison to go back to the originating bureau or office for their concurrence on the redactions.

Regarding those non-State.gov email addresses: "I dunno, duh..."

Q: Between January 2009 and March 2015, did anyone within IPS, while responding to FOIA requests that may implicate Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin's e-mails, become aware of the HDR22@Clintonemail.com e-mail address?
A: It's not possible for me to definitively answer that question.
Q: Would that be the same answer for the Huma@Clintonemail.com e-mail address?
A: Yes.

Q: You testified earlier that you were are aware of specific FOIA requests that were sent after Mrs. Clinton left office [February 2013 to March 2015] that implicated Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin's e-mails.
A: Yes...I'm not prepared to discuss specific cases.

About the DS-1748 search form:

A: It's primarily to document the search that was conducted. It's an instruction from the IPS office, to the office that's been tasked to do a search. And then it is the response from the office that has been tasked to do that search, documenting the search that it has conducted.
Q: What do you mean by "an instruction"?
A: It contains the information about the specific FOIA request, the subject, the keywords if there are any, the date ranges.

More naming of names:

Q:...You spoke with Mr. Finney in preparation for today's deposition. Who else did you speak with?
A: Sure. John Hackett, formerly in IPS; Karen Finnegan, formerly in IPS; Margaret Garfield, A/GIS; William Fischer, IPS; Eric Stein, IPS; Tasha Thian, formerly in IPS; Sheryl Walter, formerly in IPS; Julia Navarro, IPS; Mary Casto, IPS; Jeanne
Miller, IPS; Edgar Jaramillo, IPS; Susan Weetman, IPS; Patrick Scholl, IPS; Patrick Kennedy, M; Clarence Finney, S/ES; Tom Lawrence, S/ES; Cindy Almodovar, S/ES; Jennifer Davis, formerly S; Daniel Fogarty, formerly S; Joseph Macmanus, S/ES; Jonathon Wasser, S/ES; Paul Horowitz, formerly S/ES; Katie Stana, formerly S/ES; MaryKay Carlson, formerly
S/ES; Kin Moy, formerly S/ES; Kenneth LaVolpe, S/ES; Daniel Smith, formerly in S/ES; Stephen Mull, formerly in S/ES; Lewis Lukens, formerly in S/ES; through counsel Cheryl Mills, formerly in S; Gene Smilansky, Office of the Legal Advisor; Jonathan Davis, Office of the Legal Advisor; Janice Jacobs, Transparency Coordinator; Michael Kirby, Deputy Transparency Coordinator; reached out to John Bentel through counsel, who declined to speak with State; reached out to Huma Abedin through counsel, but was unable to reach her prior to the deposition

More about CM:

Q:...What did Cheryl Mills tell you?
A: Cheryl Mills met with counsel.
Q: Did counsel advise you of what Ms. Mills or Ms. Mills' representative told them?
A: Yes.
Q: What did Ms. Mills or her representatives tell them?
A: Ms. Mills' representatives answered questions regarding the general policies and procedures for processing FOIA from her perspective during her time as an employee at the Department of State.

Q: Did you speak with Mr. Lukens?
A: No, not personally.

Q: You testified earlier that you spoke to Mr. Finney for a total of approximately three hours...Did you speak to anybody for a longer period of time, than you spoke to Mr. Finney?
A: Eric Stein, Jonathon Wasser...Mr. Stein is the acting co-Director of the IPS office [since] March or April of this year.
Q: What did Mr. Wasser tell you in preparation for today?
A: The topic of the deposition is State Department practice for processing FOIA requests...About his practice of processing FOIA requests...
Q: Did you and Mr. Wasser discuss Mrs. Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he tell you?
A: That non-State.gov e-mail account, which is now, as you know, available online for review by the public, searching that account in response to FOIA requests actually forms a significant part of Mr. Wasser's job... He became aware of the possibly responsive documents contained in non-State.gov e-mail when Mrs. Clinton, former Secretary Clinton, turned those documents over to the State Department in December of 2014...
Q: Mr. Wasser informed you that he knew of Mrs. Clinton's non-State.gov e-mail account prior to December 2014?
A: No.
Q: During your preparations you said you talked with Mr. Wasser. During those discussions, what did he tell you about his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's non-State.gov e-mail account that she used for government business?
A: I don't recall specific discussions about his knowledge of that.

Karin Lang did not personally speak to the following people but her counsel did:

John Hackett, Margaret Grafeld,
Patrick Kennedy, Stephen Mull, Lewis Lukens, Cheryl Mills, and the two at the end that counsel reached out to but were not able to connect with.

Q:...With respect to Mr. Finney, in preparation for today did you and Mr. Finney talk about his knowledge about Mrs. Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?
A: Yes...Clarence Finney told me that he was not aware of former Secretary Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct government business throughout her tenure, nor for quite some time after her tenure.

Karin Lang personally reviewed emails of

Clarence Finney, Jennifer Davis, Daniel Fogarty, Joseph Macmanus, Stephen Mull, Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin.
Q: Did you ask these individuals directly for their e-mail records?
A: No.
Q: How did you get them?
A: Through the State Department, S/ES-IRM.

Q: What was the time period of Mr. Finney's e-mail records that you reviewed in preparation for today?
A: Approximately 2011 to the present.
Q: In those e-mails from 2011 to 2013, did any of them refer to a personal e-mail address being used by Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business?
A: No.

Referring to emails of Joseph McManus [executive assistant to Secretary Clinton] personally reviewed by Karin Lang for this deposition:

Q: In any of those e-mail records that you reviewed, did they contain the e-mail address HDR22@Clintonemail.com?
A: No. [during 2009 to 2011]

Q In the course of processing FOIA requests, that implicated Ms. Clinton's or Ms. Abedin's e-mails, did IPS ever learn or become aware of Mrs. Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?
A: IPS is an office of three to four hundred people processing tens of thousands of FOIA requests per year. I don't think there is a way to answer that question definitively without speaking to all the current and former employees of IPS, which would be a very burdensome undertaking...[senior-level officials within IPS]...to the best of my knowledge, no, they were not aware of use of such an e-mail account during her tenure. The Director of IPS from late in 2011 until early 2014 was Sheryl Walter.
Q: Between February 2013 and March 2015, do you know if senior-level officials within IPS, in the course of processing FOIA requests that may implicate Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin's e-mails, were aware of Mrs. Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?
A: Yes...Department officials with responsibilities for federal record keeping became aware and began to make inquiries about the use of non-State.gov e-mail to conduct government business over the summer of 2014.

Q: for the time period between January 2009 and February 2013, was any senior-level officials within IPS aware of Ms. Abedin's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?
A: No, I don't believe so.

So, DOS knew about Clinton's use of a non-State.gov email address but not HA's, at least to February 2013.

A: Ms. Abedin had a State.gov e-mail address and conducted government business on that address. The awareness that there may be records outside of State.gov I believe emerged from a review of Secretary Clinton's e-mails.
Q: Do you know if anybody within IPS asked Ms. Abedin between January 2009 and February of 2013 whether she was using a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business along with her use of a State.gov e-mail account?
A: No.

In preparation for this deposition KL created a list of people to consult with (already detailed above); how were they selected?:

A: In discussions with counsel and colleagues in the department, we considered who would be knowledgeable on the topic of this deposition.

Does DOS know, even now, if all HRC and HA records have been returned?:

Q: Does the State Department know if Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin has returned to the State Department all records that may be potentially responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case?
A: The State Department's only basis for judging whether or not they've returned all potentially responsive records would be their statements on that subject.

In other words, we have only HRC's word that all relevant records have been returned in reply to this FOIA law suit.

Can you believe anything a habitual liar tells you?

A: I believe former Secretary Clinton has told the State Department that she's returned all official -- government business records that she had in her possession and control to return.
Q: Has the State Department specifically asked Mrs. Clinton to return any records that are potentially responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case?
A: No.

Oh, please don't bother Medusa with those unpleasant questions!

Q: Does the State Department know if Ms. Abedin has turned over all records that are potentially responsive to the FOIA requests that are at issue in this case?
A: Again, the State Department's basis for knowing that would be Ms. Abedin's statements regarding the records that she's turned over.

No, we can't bother her ladyship's maid-in-waiting with those pesky details:

Q: Has the State Department asked Ms. Abedin if she has turned over all records potentially responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case?
A: Not to my knowledge.

Page 183: The defense gets their turn at bat:

A: The referenced document contains a letter from the State Department to Ms. Abedin's legal counsel, dated August 5th, 2015, specifically asking her for documents responsive to this case... As I just noted, the letter dated August 5th, 2015, from the State Department was directed to Ms. Abedin's counsel to ask this question, ask that she turn over any documents responsive to this case. A separate letter, also dated August 5th, 2015, was directed to former Secretary Clinton's
counsel, asking her specifically again to turn over any documents related to this case, responsive to this case.

Q: Do you now wish to add to or modify that answer [i.e., Has the State Department specifically asked Mrs. Clinton to return any records that are potentially responsive to the FOIA]?
A: Yes...As noted in the court filing, the defendant's status report filed on August 7th, 2015, one of the letters attached dated August 5th, 2015, is a letter to former Secretary Clinton's counsel asking that she turn over any documents potentially responsive to this FOIA case... Or if she had, in fact, already turned them over to confirm under penalty of perjury that she had done so.
Q: Thank you. And, Ms. Lang, you were also asked on direct whether anyone who worked for Mr. Clarence Finney asked S/ES-IRM about whether former Secretary Clinton used e-mail, whether anybody asked that question when Ms. Clinton was in office.
Do you have any further information in response to that question as you sit here now?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you please tell us.
A: I spoke to Clarence Finney on the break, and he advised that he did not believe anyone who worked for him had conversations about that topic with S/ES-IRM during that time period.
Q: Did Mr. Finney also provide any information as to whether anyone who worked for him asked him whether former Secretary Clinton used e-mail during the time of her tenure?
A Yes. He provided information on this.
Q: What information did he provide?
A: He advised that they did not.
Q: Also on the direct examination, Ms. Lang, you were asked about, when the FOIA request in this case, at issue in this case, was reopened in March of 2015, who decided to task the Under Secretary of Management with a search. Do you recall that question?
A: Yes.

The above exchange is to keep Karin Lang from later being accused of perjury. This also pertains to the following:

Q And would you like to provide any further information in answer to it now?
A: Yes...Based on a conversation just now with Susan Weetman and Julia Navarro from IPS, Appeals and Litigation branch, the decision to task the Under Secretary for Management's office for additional possible responsive records was made by
Susan Weetman, then the branch chief of Appeals and Litigation, upon the advice of the Office of the Legal Advisor, based on a review of documents that had already been produced in the case.

Note, the above "clarifications" to KL's earlier testimony occurred after a brief deposition recess, during which KL re-conferred with several of her "sources". We wouldn't want all those DOS staffers wasting their time in court to explain that they did not lie in giving KL information.

Q: You just testified about the August 5th, 2015, letters that were sent to Ms. Abedin and to Mrs. Clinton, or representatives of them. Did the State Department receive responses to those letters?
A: Yes.
Q: In those responses did Mrs. Clinton inform the State Department that she has turned over all records potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request?
A: Yes.

Referring to exhibit 4, a declaration by a Mr. John Hackett:

Q: On August 14, 2015, Mr. Hackett filed a declaration in this case that stated, "By letter dated August 12th, 2015, former Secretary Clinton's attorney informed the department that he provided to the Department of Justice on August 6, 2015, the PST file containing electronic copies of the 55,000 pages of e-mails on a thumb drive along with two copies." "Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Exhibits B, C, and D. On August 6, 2015, counsel for Ms. Abedin responded to the department's request for federal records in her possession. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. On August 6, 2015, counsel for Ms. Mills responded to the department's August 5th letter. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The department has not yet received a response to its letter from the former Secretary."
Turning to Exhibit 5, which is a supplement to the defendant's August 7th, 2015, status report, filed on August 10, 2015. It reads, "This is to supplement Paragraph 2 of the August 7, 2015, status report filed by the U.S. Department of State. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a declaration dated August 8, 2015, from former Secretary Clinton."
...Reading from Exhibit 4, the letter dated August 5th, 2015, from the State Department, Under Secretary of State for Management, to counsel for former Secretary Clinton. "As you know, the department requested that your client, former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, provide it with any federal records in her possession, such as an e-mail sent or received on a personal e-mail account while serving as Secretary of State if there is reason to believe that it may not otherwise be
preserved in the department's record-keeping system....

Continuing KL's responses, we get to the heart of this case: [talking about exhibit 4]

"Your client has produced approximately 55,000 pages of documents in response. I am writing to you now regarding additional requests the Department has been ordered to make of your client in a Freedom for Information Act, FOIA Case Judicial Watch versus Department of State, DDC Number 13-CV-1363.
"On July 31st, 2015, the United States District Court in the Judicial Watch case ordered the Department to make two requests of your client related to the FOIA requests at issue in that case.

Note:
1. The attorney has emails on a thumb drive, many of which he had no security clearance to read
2. Despite HRC's protestations, she only turned over less than half of her emails.

KL then extracts foot from mouth, again:

A: To amend my answer to the previous question, from the defendant's status report filed on the 7th of August, 2015, Paragraph 2 reads, "The department has also complied with subparts 2 and 3 of the court's order. On August 5th, 2015, the department wrote to the former Secretary, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Mills, requesting that these individuals provide it with the information that the court ordered it to request regarding federal records in their possession. Copies of these letters are attached."

Those FOIA requests seek the following information: Any and all SS 50 notification of" personnel --"personnel action forms for Abedin, any and all contracts including but not limited to personal service contracts between the Department of State and Ms. Abedin, and any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the authorization for Ms. Abedin to represent individual clients and/or otherwise engaged in outside employment while employed by and/or engaged in a contractual arrangement with the Department of State. "Pursuant to the court's order, a copy of which is attached, the department requests that your client confirm under penalty of perjury that she has produced all responsive information that was or is in her possession as a result of her employment at the State Department. "If all such information has not yet been produced, please produce the information forthwith and describe under penalty of perjury the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton's e-mail server to conduct official government business. "In the event you have questions regarding the transfer of records to the department, please contact the agency records officer William Fischer at 202-261-8369. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you would confirm receipt of this letter and respond to the above request for information in writing as soon as possible." And it is signed by Under Secretary Pat Kennedy.

KL repeatedly refuses to answer the question

Q: did Mrs. Clinton confirm for the State Department that she produced all records potentially responsive to this FOIA request?

A similar stonewalling was elicited by this:

Q: A similar letter from Under Secretary -- you testified that a similar letter was sent from Pat Kennedy to Ms. Abedin. Does Ms. Abedin in response to that letter confirm that she returned all potentially responsive records -- all records to the State Department that are potentially responsive to the FOIA request at
issue in this case?
A: At the time the letter was sent on August 5th, the response on August 6th that was attached to this court filing was a partial response, because at that time Ms. Abedin was still producing documents and returning them to the State Department.

Another revolution on the merry-go-round:

Q: Does the State Department know if Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin have turned over all records potentially responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this case?
A: No. The department is relying on the representations of these former employees.

QUESTIONS WITNESS WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER:
Page 12:

When you started that position in July 2015, what specific FOIA training did you have?

Page 12:

Q Could you talk specific -- generally about what your responsibilities are when it comes to FOIA?

Page 46:

Q Okay. When -- you said it generally was -- the rollout started in January of 2009. When was it -- was it rolled out at that time for the Office of the Secretary?

Page 48:

Q: Were records searched for -- records of individual employees within the Office of the
Secretary, were their records searched in response to this FOIA request?

Page 49:

Q: Was there a determination made at any point that Mrs. Clinton's e-mail records were not within the custody and control of the State Department?

Page 50:

Q:..The time frame would be between the FOIA request being sent in May 21st, 2013, and the date of the response, February 12th, 2014. Was a determination made during that time period, when responding to this FOIA request, that Mrs. Clinton's e-mails were not under the custody and control of the State Department?

Page 55:

Q: Do you know if the Executive Secretariat, those that oversaw the Deputy Director, if they knew
during that time period that Mrs. Clinton used e-mail to -- for work-related purposes?

Page 64: for context the following Q&A is included:

Q Okay. What did IRM -- in response to that question by Mr. Finney, what did S/ES-IRM inform Mr. Finney?
A: That she still did not have a State.gov e-mail account.
Q: How do you know this?
A: Through conversations with Clarence Finney.
Q: Okay. What else did they discuss at that time?

Page 66:

Q: When you first started as Director, did you speak with Mr. Finney about e-mail records of Mrs. Clinton as they would relate to FOIA requests?

Page 69:

Q: What did Mr. Finney tell you about seeing the photo [when Mrs. Clinton's photo appeared
in the media with her appearing to use some sort of a mobile device]?

Page 74:

Q:...Who made that determination within the Office of the Executive Director, to task only the HR component?

Page 81:

Q:...what is included in that Freedoms system?

Page 89:

Q: A specific individual, not -- not the title or the office they were in. Who was the individual, the specific individual, that made the determination to search the e-mail -- search the State.gov e-mail records of Ms. Mills, Ms. Abedin, Ms. Motley, and Ms. Samuelson?

Pages 95-96:

Q: Mrs. Clinton has stated and it's also been testified to in this case that it was her e-mail practice to e-mail government employees on their dot gov e-mail accounts. She said and the testimony said the reason for this practice was so work e-mails would be immediately captured and preserved in government recordkeeping systems. Was the State Department aware at any time between January 2009 and February -- I guess we're in July of 2015, that that was Mrs. Clinton's e-mail practice?

Page 99:

Q: When did the State Department become aware of those, that Mrs. Clinton has made such statements [that Mrs. Clinton's recordkeeping process was to e-mail government employees on their dot gov e-mail account]?

Page 99:

Q: Now that the State Department knows that that was what Mrs. Clinton -- does the State Department believe that was an adequate process to capture e-mails of conducting official government business?

Page 100:

Q: Now that the State Department is aware that Mrs. Clinton has said that this was her practice, does the State Department believe that their searches in response to this FOIA request, either the initial search, during the initial time period, were sufficient...in your personal opinion?

Page 108:

Q: Since the State Department received Judicial Watch's FOIA request at issue in this case, is the State Department aware of any potentially responsive e-mails that have been destroyed or lost?

Page 110:

Q: You mentioned that in response to this FOIA request, the e-mail files of Ms. Abedin, Ms. Mills, Ms. Motley, and Ms. Samuelson were searched. Were any steps taken, after the State Department was served with the lawsuit in this case, to ensure that those e-mails -- that e-mails that may be potentially responsive in this FOIA request

Page 112:

Q: For how long does S/ES-IRM archive, maintain, retain PST files for former employees?

Page 112:

Q: With respect to Ms. Abedin's State Department e-mail account, how long is S/ES-IRM planning to maintain, preserve, retain her PST file?

Page 114:

Q: Do you know of any specific FOIA requests during the time period Mrs. Clinton was in office that may have implicated Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin's e-mails?

Page 129:

Q Do you have a sense, a time frame generally of when he [John Bentel, Director of S/ES-IRM was during Mrs. Clinton's tenure] left the employment of the State Department?

Page 130:

Q: Is that unusual [for HRC and HA to not be FOIA-trained]?

Page 130:

Q: Were other employees within the Office of the Secretary trained with respect to FOIA-related
issues during that time period?

Page 131:

Q: How would Ms. Mills know what her obligations were when it came to FOIA and her e-mails, if she weren't trained?

Page 132:

Q: Why did the State Department not train Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton on FOIA-related issues when they came in?

Page 132:

Q: Why was Ms. Abedin and Ms. Clinton not trained with respect to FOIA and their e-mails while they were in office?

Page 132:

Q: Did -- did anybody the State Department ever ask Mrs. Clinton if she was using a personal e-mail
account to conduct work-related business?

Page 134:

Q: Besides the FOIA requests at issue in this case, do you recall any specific FOIA requests or do you know of any specific FOIA requests that were received for -- by the State Department between February 2013 and March 2015 that implicated Mrs. --February 2013 and March 2015?

Page 137:

Q:...During, more generally, between January 2009 and March 2015, while the State Department was
processing FOIA requests that may implicate Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin's e-mail, did any State Department employees come across a non-State.gov e-mail account for Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Abedin?

Page 138:

Q: While the State Department was processing any of Ms. Abedin's e-mails in response to a FOIA request received between January 2009 and March 2015, did the State Department come across, see, a non-State.gov e-mail account for Ms. Abedin?

Page 142:

Q: While Mrs. Clinton was in office and a FOIA request was for records that may implicate Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin's e-mail, did anyone within IPS become aware of a non-State.gov e-mail account for Ms. Abedin while conducting the privilege or other review that you were just discussing?
A: It's not possible to definitively answer that question.
Q: Would it be possible by asking individual employees that reviewed records responsive to FOIA requests?

Page 148:

Q: Did you have conversations with Mr. Finney or anyone else about specific FOIA requests that were received during Mrs. Clinton's tenure?

Page 155:

Q: What did Mr. Mull -- did counsel tell you what Mr. Mull said in preparation for your deposition today?

Page 156:

Q: Did counsel tell you what Mr. Lukens told you, or told them?

Page 157:

Q Did you speak to anybody [besides Clarence Finney] more than three hours about your testimony today?

Page 167:

Q: Who specifically provided you with those e-mails?

Page 170:

Q: When did IPS become aware of Mrs. Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?

Page 175:

Q: Do you know while Mrs. Clinton was in office if the Office of Legal Advisor was aware of Mrs. Clinton's use of a non-State.gov e-mail address to conduct official government business?

Page 175:

Q: During that process while Mrs. Clinton was in office, was the Office of Legal Advisor aware that Mrs. Clinton was using a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?

Page 177:

Q: In the course of representing the State Department in FOIA litigation that may have implicated Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin's e-mails, when did the State Department inform the Department of Justice that Mrs. Clinton used a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business?

Page 178:

The question was when the State Department as the client informed the attorney, not about the attorney's mental impressions or discussions that the attorney had with the State Department.

Page 178:

Q: And I'm going to ask the same question for when the State Department informed the Department of Justice about Ms. Abedin's use of a non-State.gov e-mail account to conduct official government business.

Page 202:

Q: Has Ms. Abedin finished producing records to the State Department?