In Friday’s court-ordered release of Hillary Clinton’s deleted
emails, an exchange between her and Huma Abedin further undercuts her
claim that she opted to use a private server for “convenience.”
According to the 2010 email, which appears to have been withheld
despite clearly being work-related, Abedin wrote to inform Clinton that her
emails were going to spam and that she should begin using an official
state.gov address to fix the problem.
See the email and comment from the RNC below:
“Once again, Hillary Clinton’s claim that she set up her
illicit private server for ‘convenience’ has been shown to be a complete lie.
Given that more than half of Clinton’s non-governmental meetings
were with Clinton Foundation donors, it’s clear the server was always about
covering up pay-to-play corruption at her State Department.” – RNC
spokesman Michael Short
In 2010, Clinton State Department Aide Huma Abedin Said To Clinton
“We Should Talk About Putting You On State Email Or Releasing Your Email
Address To The [State] Department” Because Her Emails Were Going To Recipients
Spam Folders.”
Here’s the text of the email and further below is the image of
that email:
“We should talk about putting you on state
email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to
spam. Its (sic) not the phone message system, its (sic) the device delay.” (Huma
Abedin, Email To Hillary Clinton, State
Department FOIA, 11/13/10)
______________________________________________________________________
Career
FOIA and Department of Justice officials are casting doubt on Patrick Kennedy’s
dubious explanation for why he appeared in an FBI report negotiating a “quid
pro quo” deal with an agent trying to change the classification of a Hillary
Clinton email.
Kennedy
said on Tuesday that “I wanted to better understand a proposal the FBI had made
to upgrade one of former Secretary Clinton’s emails prior to its public
release.”
But
he also flatly denied that the issue of FBI Iraq slots and the classification
issue were raised in the same breath.
But
on Tuesday, the unnamed FBI official revealed himself as Brian McCauley in
interviews to the Washington Post and Politico.
The
now-retired agent, who served as the FBI’s deputy assistant director for
international operations, said for weeks he had been trying to get the State
Department to sign off on his request to send two FBI employees to Baghdad.
In
May 2015, Kennedy finally called back. Former Justice officials and FOIA
experts questioned why Kennedy would reach out to McCauley, of all people, to
“better understand” the bureau’s views on the specific classification decision.
“There is no way that Mr. Kennedy contacted
the Deputy Assistant Director of International Operations to understand a
proposed FBI classification decision, which would be made by an entirely
different component of the FBI,” said Kel McClanahan, the executive director of
National Security Counselors, an organization that specializes in litigation
and FOIA requests to acquire government documents related to national security.
“The only reason Mr. Kennedy, who would be
very familiar with this office and its area of expertise, would contact Mr. McCauley,
would be to discuss international operations, in this case, the placement of
FBI agents in Baghdad.” Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer specializing in
national security and disclosure law, added that the “explanation just doesn’t
make sense.”
ICYMI:
Yesterday, the RNC called on the State Department Inspector General to launch
an investigation into the quid pro quo allegations.
The Republican National Committee is calling for an investigation into
allegations that a State Department official pressed an FBI official to
downgrade a classified email designation. In exchange, a "quid pro
quo" was discussed. The RNC filed a letter to the State Department’s
inspector general on Tuesday, demanding an investigation into an allegation
made public Monday, when the FBI released 100 pages of documents related to its
investigations into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was
secretary of state. According to the FBI’s notes, an unnamed official in the
bureau’s records management division alleged that Patrick Kennedy,
undersecretary of state for management, pushed to have a classified email
downgraded to unclassified it appeared in exchange for State allowing the FBI
to place agents in more countries.
New
emails are casting doubt on Hillary Clinton’s sworn testimony that she did not
discuss her private server with her IT staffer Bryan Pagliano.
Emails
recovered from Hillary Clinton's server by the FBI and made public Wednesday
cast doubt on the former secretary of state's own testimony about her email
use.
Responding
to a set of questions under oath last week, Clinton said through her lawyer
that she did not recall discussing her server with Bryan Pagliano, the IT aide
whose immunity deal was the first to emerge publicly from the year-long FBI
probe.
"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 emails in her
clintonemail.com email account," Clinton testified through her lawyer,
David Kendall, after raising objections to the question.
But
emails provided to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch through the Freedom of
Information Act show Clinton included Pagliano in discussions about her
Blackberry, iPad and server when her network experienced problems in 2012.
The
Clinton campaign “plotted to raise a bundle of campaign cash but then use the
government to attack opponents for trying to do the same thing.”
The
WikiLeaks email dumps are giving voters some insights into the realities of
hardball politics.
It isn’t pretty.
Take
the recent disclosures that show how the Clinton campaign plotted to raise a
bundle of campaign cash but then use the government to attack opponents for
trying to do the same thing.
The
Clinton brain trust plotted to raise as much money as possible under current
campaign laws, which they certainly have.
As
everyone has reported, no candidate in history has raised more big money from
more rich donors than Mrs. Clinton has.
But
having cashed in themselves, the Clinton campaign then plotted to use the
government’s campaign-finance enforcement machinery to harass their opponents
for raising money.
And
sure enough, the political left has ginned up a media campaign to change the
FEC, and the Justice Department announced intensified scrutiny of campaign
fundraising.
We
criticized both moves, and we hope that has helped deter some nasty partisan
abuse.
One
of the many reasons we oppose limits on campaign donations is that politicians
inevitably use them to punish their opponents.
The
Clinton campaign emails show this calculation in especially cynical form.
Complied
by the RNC.
