The JW Interrogatories are out! UPDATED w/ all 25 questions/answers
They open with a disclaimer worth reading, apparently, she objects:
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.
Here's the write-up in POLITICO:
Clinton answers written questions under penalty of perjury in email lawsuit
"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," lawyers for Clinton wrote.
Clinton also said she could not recall ever being warned about any hacking or attempted hacking of her private account or server.
Clinton signed the legal filing Monday "under penalty of perjury." The submission was ordered by a federal judge in connection with a Freedom of Information Action lawsuit filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch.
Here's the link to a copy of the document. It's 23 pages - I'm going to go read and see what's interesting.... Will update in a bit.
UPDATE:
She objects because she has previously objected "on the ground that any discovery of Secretary Clinton is unwarranted in this case"
She will respond to questions on the creation and operation of clintonemail.com with non-privileged information.
She objects to providing any answers to anything which took place after she left office (SOS).
She objects to discussing any emails which were 'personal in nature.' That oughta make things interesting since she claims everything deleted was personal.
Here's a douzy:
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.
So, because they didn't sue about specifically about record retention, she won't answer about that topic (record retention being under different statutes than FOIA is).
Here's a red herring:
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.
My recollection is that JW is asking about why she believes these emails belong to her and are not government records, so by saying she won't produce a privilege log, she's deliberately missing the point (I'll need to look up that instruction).
She objects to using the term 'clintonemail.com system' to describe anything which transpired after she left office as being outside the scope of discovery.
She objects to referring to other accounts on the clintonemail.com server under the term “Clintonemail.com account” She says she will only answer with respect to the hdr22 account (but we know from the FBI she used another email at least some).
The actual responses begin on page 4.
First Question:
1. 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.
First Answer:
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.
Ok, so we have an exercise in tooth-pulling. Not that anyone expected anything different.
2. 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.
Was that so hard? We have ONE specific piece of information.
3. 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.
Interesting... so where did all that bluster about 'it was allowed' come from if no one was consulted...?
4. 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.
So, she talked to exactly NO ONE. And there's a lot of gobbleygook objecting about a timing issue not in the question.
5. 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.
Could they BE any more vague in that answer?
6. 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.
Well, she never asked anyone, we have learned, so no surprise that no one commented on what they did not know.
7. 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.
Please ignore the emails which show they were discussing how to keep information off the books.
8. 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.
Um, defensive much? That second portion was not asked in this question.
9. 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.
Well, it's a bit more complicated than they make it sound, of course. Since she did not send from a state.gov address, they can't simply pull up her sent folder to find out what she sent. They would have to search the inbox of every recipient separately, so they'd first have to know to whom she sent emails. Which means those emails may be in there somewhere, but they are not easily retrievable on the whole.
10. 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.
You see the timing issue her attorneys construct here, yes? I believe all the FOIA requests came in after she left office, therefore, according to the conditions they have set up for themselves, they do not have to answer about anything they did or did not do to assist State in coming up with her emails which were FOIAed.
11. 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.
Ok, so she didn't work with the staff who were there... I guess she only works with her traveling inner-circle. Interesting.
12. 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.
13. 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.
I suspect the judge will call this nonresponsive.
14. 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.
Huh. Perhaps the judge will find that reasonable.
15. 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.
16. Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011
discuss 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
17. 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.
Lordy, it doesn't improve with repetition, does it?
18. 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.
You all smelled that answer a'comin', I presume.
However this is the first time I'm aware of that she is specifically claiming that she did not send the email which went out in her name. I guess that means she is not responsible for the content. I sure feel good about that level of accountability.
19. 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.
Um, this looks to me to be splitting invisible hairs. They did not make any reference to time in their question, so I would presume they meant during her tenure. Apparently, her attorneys really, really, really do not want her on record on this matter so they have to pretend the time-frame is after her tenure. It will be interesting to see if the judge has a sense of humor about this.
20. 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.
I love this question. Simple. Elegant.
21. 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?
She ain't gonna answer this one...
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.
Ok, THAT's clear. Is there ANYONE in the country who believes this answer?
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.
How about being advised by her handlers that they had made arrangements to have alterations and destruction done on her behalf?
23. 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.
No comment.
24. 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.
Wow, we got to #24 before she relied on this. That took a lot of restraint. They must have been entirely out of other options.
25. 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
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.
Yeah, when these were filed, JW (and the rest of us) did not yet know it was Heather Samuelson and not Pagliano who did the sorting, and the transferring and bleaching was done at Platte River Networks.
So, there we have it. JW will certainly object to the objections and demand an in-person depo. We'll see in what humor the judge is after reading this and whatever JW produces next. Stay tuned and keep plenty of popcorn on hand...
NEW FRIDAY MORNING: Here's the Judicial Watch press release - they have copies of all the questions and answers, which I will omit here:
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released received responses under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Judicial Watch submitted twenty-five questions on August 30 to Clinton as ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
The new Clinton responses in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan 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 already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.
(This is where I have omitted material which can be found at the link)
Judicial Watch has taken 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. Judicial Watch plans 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.
“We’re pleased that we now have a little bit more information about Hillary Clinton’s email practices,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Our lawyers will be reviewing the responses closely. Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to answer many of the questions in a clear and straightforward manner further reflects disdain for the rule of law.
For further information on this case, click here.
###
Comments
psssst. you forgot the link
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Which link?
The POLITICO story link is in the title of it, and the document link is where it says 'link' in blue (and can also be accessed from the POLITICO piece). It appears to me that both links are in the essay as I inserted them.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
"Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall ..." X 20
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000157-c022-d816-a1d7-ca27953b0001
So we may have a President
who has a severe memory problem?????
She may not recall, but I thought everyone in the State Dept had to sign a paper acknowledging that they had been briefed as to record keeping procedures. Does anyone else remember reading this?
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
But she does recall this.
Is it even possible to have two worse candidates for the leader of the free world than these two?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
No
It is not possible.
Yes, it is possible, and I will prove it to you in exactly
Four years.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Well, maybe not you
But you'll definitely be standing there saying, "see, told you so."
Yes
We could have two Hillarys: Warmongering, TPP-supporting, SS- and Medicare-cutting (remember Simpson & Bowles? They "had it about right."), with "both a public and a private policy."
Do those things matter at all? The disgusting other candidate opposes all of those. Do we care? Or is this all about style? In essence, a beauty contest? Let's forget about the survival of the earth?
As for Michelle's shock "to her core," charming as she is, I find it hard to believe that she has been that sheltered.
Trump's behavior may be shocking
...but he's not the only candidate with shocking practices this silly season. The other candidate has a whole outfit doing oppo research and also has the media eating out of it's hand.
Either candidate is a disaster for the country, the people here and around the world, and for the planet, itself.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Hard to imagine
but then again, I thought we couldn't get worse than GWB and hoped we'd learn from that lesson.
"So it goes."
Kurt Vonnegut
Thu, 10/13/2016 - 7:41pm —
Thu, 10/13/2016 - 7:41pm — gulfgal98
Also one who freely and repeatedly admits to being excessively incompetent and stupid, and to not bothering to even try to discover and understand basic security and other important requirements of her job.
And she tries to present her coronation as being a step forward for feminism when the very idea is an insult to the concept of a woman being the best choice for an important position 50% of the time simply because gender shouldn't be a barrier. She's self-disqualified herself even if only the question of competence for any public service position is considered.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Seems like bad timing to object to answering questions.
I guess she IS above the Law, according to her lawyers.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
it would be easier to ask "what do you recall ... at all?"
Did you do any work for the citizens of the USA while serving as Secretary of State? __ Yes __ No
Please list _____________________________________________________________________
Well, I'm sure JW is hoping that the nonresponsiveness
gives them grounds to ask to depose her in person.
And I'm sure that they will object to her being deposed after she has been elected (should that come to pass).
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
if they depose her
she (or her lawyers) will say the same 3 things she said in her written answers:
1) I object
2) I do not recall
3) Colin Powell
You forgot one: "TRUMP!!!!" n/t
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Forgot one more: "PUTIN! RUSSIA!" n/t
You also forgot Russia
Or is the Russia deflection not in that timeline?
Sorry, I get so confused with the deflections of why Hillary thought that it was okay to set up a private server, not turn in her emails in a timely manner, turned them in only after it came out that she had a private server during the Benghazi hearings.
Or that when she was told to turn them over, she deleted 30,000 because she said that they were private and regarded communications about yoga and
communications with people from the Clinton foundationChelsea's wedding.And then after she said that she had turned over all of them the FBI kept finding a few thousand here and a few more thousand there.
Her answer that she expected that the emails would be retained for a FOIA on the people she emailed .gov account is ridiculous as MsGrin said because first, how would the FBI be able to know each individual she emailed or how they could easily find the ones from her in their email accounts?
I guess that might be why it took over a year to wrap the investigation up. The people working on it would have to search each person's email accounts to find the ones that were saved for prosperity.
I hope that they didn't forget to look at Obama's email account.
Stating that "I do not recall" more than a certain amount of times should be disallowed and people should have to answer more fully, but can qualify it by stating " If I recall correctly"
Thank you MsGrin for digging through the deposition and writing it up like this.
That seems to be a lot of time consuming work.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Hillary should be happy I'm not the judge in this case!
If I were, there would already being a subpoena issued demanding she appear, in person, on Monday morning. And every time her attorneys made one of these bogus objections, the same repetitive words would be heard, "Overruled, answer the question!"
It's really mind boggling, 25 questions, 20 "I don't recalls". Trump is right about at least one thing, Hillary needs to go to jail.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
Thu, 10/13/2016 - 9:29pm —
Thu, 10/13/2016 - 9:29pm — reflectionsv37
Or at least be recognized as disqualified for the public service in any area on the grounds of her own repeatedly admitted mental incompetence.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Is it a too obvious ploy
to avoid a perjury charge?
This was, after all, under oath. Unlike the FBI's interview with her.
Unlike the FBI, I don't believe JW will give up regardless of who becomes President.
But JW cannot make their own criminal charges
They have to sue...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Duplicate
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Bill Clinton
Tried to use being commander in chief as a reason to delay Paula Jones's lawsuit. Didn't work.
If a scapegoat is required,
I'm betting the head of Info Mgmt (forget his name - Bentel?) will take the fall.
Maybe so - he gets deposed this month...
Their history suggests someone will need to be sacrificed to mollify the crowds, and it won't be an actual decision-maker.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Thanks again for the great job of bringing this news here.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
My pleasure
The very first thing I thought today was that TODAY IS THE DAY these would be released.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
♪ ♫ “Today is the day that is full of surprises
Nobody knows what’s gonna happen”
It’s “anything can happen” day, but unfortunately, Madame Secretary’s response doesn’t rise to the level of Mickey Mouse Club.
Such memory loss
Hopefully she'll forget the nuclear codes and we can all sleep easy.
And this is utter bollox:
We know that she was warned otherwise. People were told to never mention it again.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
It wasn't just state dept employees.
How about the advice she got from Colin Powell. You know, the former sec. Of state whose email practices she followed. Or so she told us.
If only we could get Powell jailed.
Then what would her excuse be?
Oh, right: PUTIN! RUSSIA!
Which begs the question...
What about all the emails she sent to non State employees? Other departments, Clinton Foundation stooges, Arab sheiks, military contractors, Honduran Death Squad leaders, Haitian Gold miners, etc. etc.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
See #13 - JW was on top of that ;-) n/t
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
So she's basically arguing...
that emails sent to non-State employees are not subject to FOIA - even though she herself was a State employee.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It's an excellent way to state it
perhaps JW will use it if they get a second round.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Happy to work pro bono on this one.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Not Henry Kissinger
are you a lawyer? If so your one of the few online I've met that are willing to cut to the chase and translate legalistic speak into plain English. The tweaking of law has become a fine art among the pols, who are mostly lawyers. So a hat tip to you as your a legal invaluable rarity these days.
Unfortunately...
I am.
And thanks for the kind words shaharazade.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
"It's an excellent way to state it"
HRC actually, didn't answer any questions.
Her lawyers wrote the whole thing in the third person. "She doesn't remember .."
Nowhere does it say, "I swear to tell the truth ..."
This reminds me of the whole Platte River Networks and the classified material situation and her lawyers sifting through the material ... my first thought was, "Do any of those people have security clearances?"
Here, can HRC ever be convicted of perjury for anything? Nowhere does it say, "I swear to tell the truth ..." or "I don't recall." It's all hearsay.
I was saying that NHK had stated the point well
Surely I did not mean to compliment Clinton.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
yes, i was just playing off your words
"expanding" their meaning to nefarious ends ;->
Hola Joe & Bluesters! Quick (friendly) drive-by
to say 'hi,' and thanks for tonight's edition of News & Blues!
Thought I post this fluff piece about the 'huge' crowds at FSC's campaign rallies, lately. Wonder how much they paid those folks?
We've been swamped with stuff to do lately, and I've make it my business to tune into the '3' Cable News Channels (which we don't listen to much--except for most Sundays, when we listen to the replays of the Cable and Network Political Programs), to see what's going on.
It's surreal--almost no mention of Podesta's emails--just DT, DT, and more DT!
Thank goodness we don't rely on Cable News for our info--whew!
Hope you're all enjoying the same gorgeous weather that we've had now, for a couple of weeks--our favorite time of the year! We're hoping to take a several day road trip when the colors are in full force.
Hey, Everyone have a wonderful evening!
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Kinda wondering if the
Kinda wondering if the university students were ordered to attend or got credits for doing so... Hillary's campaign does use right-wing tactics, and that sort of thing's been done for, if I recall correctly, such as the billionaire Romney...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
And the definition of is... Is??
What an awesome question!!! What an ugly wake up call :-(.
...I had an eeppffffunee tonight. Ya right...also had a couple of craft brews.
I'm an opinion guy, intimidated by those willing to read, and research copious volumes of others efforts, opinions, and facts. I love the way this site offers both sorts of intellect to amicably interact. Also, a big thanks for the well considered insights so freely shared.
The pain I feel; the nausea...is something most here are familiar with. The dystopia called an "Election" that has been foisted upon us has given me "mourning sickness". My inner self, my stomach, my bowels, my private thoughts (and parts) are feeling terrible.
The entire election season has devolved to a less than childish, insulting shit throwing contest.
Everywhere I go, people are openly, and vocally expressing dismay, disgust, and disbelief, at what has been prime time "news".
Donald Trump has brought his brand of Reality TV to a point where the MSM has mimicked it and been the "enabler" in so many ways. Only a thin veil divides the policies of Trump, and Clinton. One wants an economic, and social war at home for personal profit, While one, IMHO, wants an incredibly more profitable set of wars abroad.
So back to "mourning sickness"... I found some small relief tonight (maybe it was the tuna casserole;-| )Before I went to have my happy hour, I picked up my" Bernie 2016" button, and put it on my vest ( N. Michigan vest... not suit vest!!)
Damn, did it feel good, and do my heart well to see positive looks, and smiles, and to hear honest comments about the impact he had, and the respect he commands across partisan mindset. My mourning sickness found some instant relief. No... I do not donate to "Our Revolution", but, I do read what is coming down the pipes to feel informed.
Yes!!! It offends me to the core to see him Shill for Hill, but, I am encouraged by the amount of support, and the diversity of the positive feedback that the"Bernie 2016" button, or shirts elicit. We were on to something!
I am going to be sure to sport my "Bernie" colors on a regular basis. There is no longer a" Lessor Evil. He (Trump) aimed for his foot, and shot himself in the little head. We will now elect the "Only Evil".
To boil it all down, Please remind people, wherever you are, that there WAS an alternative to the "Only Evil" option we are left with on Nov. 8, 2016. Sport your Bernie paraphenalia... if for no other reason, to put it in the face of the fear mongers, the partisan shills, that there WAS a" Human Being" running to be selected as the Democratic Party nominee. But...he didn't possess the genitals, or the bloodline requirements set by that Party, to represent them in this debacle called an election
Can't bear to strip my Bernie decals
off my car, and I still take my morning coffee in my Bernie mug. Like some ghostly apparition or white spirit buffalo on the Great Plains, I look for Bernie everywhere and hope that someday he will return to save us from the iron grip of the evil liar-in-chief and her economic consort.
With the notable exception of Bernie
Jill & Johnson have kept their noses clean, too...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
There still is a non
There still is a non-corporate, non-corporate-coup candidate running, Jill Stein.
And even if only the Indies - forming by far the largest voting group - voted for her, she'd win by a landslide. Our/life's chances of surviving beyond the next few decades leap tremendously if this occurs and if electoral cheating attempts are independently citizen-observed and recorded with any cheated-in candidate rejected by the people - and internationally by the leaders of other countries, something for which there is apparently a mechanism.
Those postulated potential few decades of grim and miserable survival before oxygen production fails are obviously 'at most', as all other Presidential candidates now running will go with the corporate coup of the TPP and other traitorous illegal and unconstitutional Trojan Horse betrayals and,
under the bizarre premise of offshored corporate for-profit 'law' overriding all law of all lands via a novel mechanism claimed to be 'legal and binding' on a traitor's signature on a privately made agreement of these hostile powers having been given - by a transitory public servant sworn to serve the public interest/uphold their country's Constitution in order to hold office at all - some non-existing, illegal and unconstitutional 'right' of suing the involved publics into bankruptcy and the grasping crush of the hands of international finance, (think Greece, but with no pretense of any restrictions at all) over any attempt at public self-protection with the potential to not maximize the self-anticipated future profits of involved corporations and billionaires at the cost of their democracy/civilization, economy, human/animal and environmental health and lives,
will perforce follow TPTB's suicidally lunatic plans for 'limited' nuclear war-crimes in multiple countries (which are resistant to abject voluntary submission to totalitarian corporate/billionaire 'trade deal' economic capture and a more gradual destruction) resulting in global nuclear winter with greatly dimmed life-supporting sunshine maintained for at least a decade, also reducing precipitation and increasing drought,
far more rapidly destroying what remains of the global oxygen-producing life support system, with ecological die-off/ocean current slowing shown to have been already even more rapidly snowballing toward an incapacity to produce sufficient oxygen to support life than was formerly recognized even with current rates of corporate/military destruction.
(This at the least, without even considering other aspects, such as ensuing heightened levels of global radiation, greatly increased further destruction of the Earth's protective ozone layer and mass global starvation of the Earth's population following global crop failure, obviously with other plant life perishing, along with other life dependent upon it, and the drastic and increasing decrease in oxygen production and the cleansing of air pollution causing the already terrifying rate of ecological/global life-support collapse to cycle to life extinction on a dead planet ever faster - with the results of billions of years of evolution murdered for the pathological greed and ignorance of a relative reality-disassociated few. )
The countries being threatened with nuclear war-crimes are those able to stand against the military invasions and take-overs of to-be-'trade-deal'-economically captured publics/countries for global power and control by a relative few who will destroy it all in the taking, and clearly consider the world to be well lost for their love of their own insanely blinded greed.
Voting for any evil - which includes the corporate coup-TPP-supporting Libertarian - is a vote for the above horrendous global suicide, whether by nukings or by a somewhat more gradual but absolutely unlimited abuse by all of thousands of involved polluting and other industries as well as those of the then-directly-corporate-controlled militaries/civil forces of all betrayed countries, which I would think by now that anyone generally aware of current events could clearly see coming and I seriously doubt that there's any chance beyond the exposure and repudiation of this final farce of a US (s)election, other than an immediate bloody global revolution in the hope of allowing the long-term survival of enough life for the life-support system to continue at some level, if this can be done before the nukes start flying and the corporations/billionaires exert direct control over our various militaries and civil forces.
We need to be very, very thankful that Russia, China, India, Pakistan and others are sensible enough to make their stand and to make it obvious that they will not meekly surrender to be passively drained and industrially poisoned to extinction by a greed-maddened collective corporate/military enemy in the process of taking over the world via implanted/imposed/corrupted politicians, judges, etc., an enemy which poses an immediately fatal hazard exceeding even that of the previous Nazi threat - one at the time also viewed by many as apparently impossible to overcome, although they were.
Even if a number of Nazi scientists and others were transferred (via such as Operation Paperclip) into the US and other governments/industries/countries to ultimately recreate their pathological culture in other democracies.
But it's better not to welcome that inimical enemy into government and 'law' before deciding how to deal with them, especially when a better option exists and can still be peacefully fought for. Especially since many of us are likely neither emotionally nor physically capable of a violent fight, even for the hope of continued life itself.
If everyone votes Jill and against the TPP corporate coup, the chips will fall where we can begin to shovel them out.
Voting for this hostile corporate take-over is not a survivable option, for anyone, anywhere on Earth.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
The Purple Heart goes to you,
Ms. Grin, for wading through the muck of Hillary Clinton's legal claptrap of a mind, except for the parts damaged by her many episodes of losing consciousness, wherein all the "I do not recalls" reside. If Dr. Seuss were still alive, perhaps he could set this tangled thicket of abstruseness to rhyme, rendering it funny, in a hypnotic sort of way. I pity the attorneys at Judicial Watch for having dealings with Clinton and her lawyers.
Dr. Seuss really could improve this mess!
The whole thing is a disgrace - the behavior does not deserve to be rewarded with the presidency.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I know, right? Good grief!
Watergate rides again, with all the lawyer-speak and twice the obfuscation.
I do believe she is modeling Nixon
In that very first job of hers on the House Oversight Committee, she got to see up close what Nixon got away with - I believe it's been something she's modeled her entire political career.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Great analogy
Medusa can always learn how to lie, cheat, and steal better when an improved method comes along. However judgement on other issues--not so good. She doesn't seem to learn anything about the serfs since she is shielded from the rabble by her platinum bubble.
The media is determined to elect her
It's just repeating her lines, all day.
No issues, just (1) shock !!! at Trump's language and (2) Russia!!! because anonymous officials (war-lovers) say it's "consistent."
Yep!
The across-the-board propping up of this candidate by the MSM is vomit inducing. Rarely a mention of issues, and very rarely any discussion of the facts revealed by Wikileaks.
Of course, any discussion of Wikileaks completely undermines both the media and her candidacy.
Boo! Russia!
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Demand Barbara lee as House Majority Leader.
I have been trying to follow the Podesta e-mails as they come through twitter, a raher frustrating endeavor as they mostly don't have a link and the one at a time is like a blast from shotgun, holes everywhere and so far very little putting it together into a pattern or doing cross-references to legal issues.
This was a bit helpful
The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins
As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-14764...
The election is sickening to us outside the USA. Its actually scary having two insane, power-mad liars running against each other and the only one or two sane candidates running in single digits as they are totally ignored.
From wjat you have posted it sounds like Clinton is suffering from advanced Alzheimers. Maybe someone has a better diagnosis???
At this point of time I am beginning to think everyone would be better off with Trump. I can think of a few reasons but I am not going to be shilling for him... except to say, his promise to put Clinton in jail is an attractive plank. Especially if the so-called "Democrats" can come up with enough evidence to put Trump in jail as well. WTF is next in line for Majority Leader (both parties) anyway? Some other lunatic for certain but:
My wish (dream on): If only it was Barbara Lee!!! Are there any sane Republicans in the House?
Sorry, images isn't working so I will have to post my Barbara Lee "Our Next President" poster later.
From the Light House.
It's not comprehensive
But the Politico liveblog has good-ish coverage of the email dumps.
I somehow do not trust Politico
anymore then I trust Huffpo or Daily Kos and it's offshoot Vox. Forget about the Establishment press, the so called 4th estate their nothing but propagandists. I broke down signed up for Twitter just for access to the Podesta e-mails. i also spent an hour a day sorting through the horse's mouth the raw Wilileaks dump. These days you really do have to sort it out yourself. So thanks for the link but I( will regard it as Lost in Translation and really only trust what I see in the wiki leak docs. Next I use my own non automated intelligence to read through them and see not just the gotchas but the general drift of what I'm reading. Wkileaks website offer a good advanced search. I'm no techie ut I can use it to pick,choose and sort through this ungodly con masquerading as a democratic political campaign and election. Dump's they are but you can't beat the wikileak dumps as far as re4vealing what they are about goes. Certainly put's a dent in the power of the propaganda and exposes the fraud that says this is a democratic election.
Barbara Lee for Majority Leader
Deleted original comment and turned this into a short essay.
From the Light House.
Said 20 Times She Didn't Recall
I don't understand why no one trusts her.
And if you read the questions that she deflected with "I obejct" or "don't recall", only someone hiding something would have deflected them.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Great essay, MsGrin!
Thank you for having sorted through all this for us so we do not have to do it. Your essays on the JW filings have been excellent.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Interesting Ms.Grin
One more aspect of just how lawless the Clinton's are. Let's see them all Killary. The most damning thing revealed here is the hubris and contempt for ordinary people by the puppet politicians R and D who rule this country and serve their masters well.
This is probably old news but ...
How is not criminal for her to hire a private IT company to work on her server, and giving them access to the information on it, when they did not have security clearances to work with that classified material? You don't just let people access classified material.