Skip to comments.New Clinton Email Scandal Testimony
Posted on 07/07/2019 6:39:19 PM PDT by robowombat
New Clinton Email Scandal Testimony! JULY 03, 2019
Former State Official Warned About Clintons Email Practices Obama Justice Gave Immunity to Clintons Lawyer Who Destroyed 33,000 Emails
Former State Official Warned About Clintons Email Practices
Judicial Watch attorneys obtained blockbuster testimony from former State Department official John Hackett, who was Director for Information Programs and Services (IPS), which handles records management at the State Department, Mr. Hackett testified under oath that he had raised concerns about former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons missing emails.
Her staff had culled out 30,000 of the secretarys personal emails without following strict National Archives standards, he said in his deposition. The full transcript deposition is here.
His testimony came as part of a series of court-ordered depositions and questions under oath of senior Obama-era State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides.
Hackett also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) review process related to the classification of Clintons Benghazi-related emails.
Hackett served first as deputy director then as director for Information Programs and Services, which handles the FOIA request program and the retirement of and declassification of documents at the State Department. He was at the department from April 2013 to March 2016.
In March 2015, Clinton told reporters that she and her staff had deleted more than 30,000 emails because they were personal and private about matters that I believed were within the scope of my personal privacy. ABC News reported: However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said.
Hackett recalled a conversation about requesting rules or parameters from Secretary Clinton or her attorneys that they used to segregate her personal and official work emails.
Hackett: I recall it wasnt much of a conversation. I I was I mean, I have to say, it was emphatic to the Under Secretary of Management and I didnt speak in tones like that very often to him you know, that we needed these you know, the guidelines.
Judicial Watch: And when you said, the Under Secretary, are you referring to Patrick Kennedy [then-Under Secretary of State for Management]?
Hackett: I think I might have raised it to Rich Visek, the Acting Office of Legal Advisor, or Peggy or Margaret Grafeld [an executive-level State Department FOIA official] raised it to Rich, as well.
Judicial Watch: Why did you feel so strongly that this was necessary, that they provide this information?
Hackett: Well, we heard that there were 50,000 or 60,000 emails, and that they had they being the Secretarys team had culled out 30,000 of these. And which is so we wanted to know what criteria they used. The standard from the National Archives is very strict. If there was if there were mixed records, that would be considered a federal record. If it was mixed personal and mentioned a discussion, that would be under the narrow National Archives rules, it would be considered a federal record.
Judicial Watch: And do you know if the emails that were returned by Secretary Clinton and her attorneys, if they followed that guideline to include an email that would include mixed information, personal and official?
Hackett: I dont know.
Judicial Watch: Was a request ever made by Patrick Kennedy or anybody else who you raised this to?
Hackett: Ambassador Kennedy told me he would ask for the the guidelines.
Judicial Watch: Do you know if the guidelines were ever provided to Patrick Kennedy?
Hackett: Not during my tenure at the State Department.
In August 2014 the State Department sent some documents to the Benghazi Select Committee that included a small number of Clinton emails. Hackett was alerted about this. Hackett was asked if the State Department attorney who gave him the heads asked why he was providing the information. Hackett answered: I think only because he knew that there was going to be publicity involved relating to this.
We also asked Hackett about his concerns over 296 of Secretary Clintons Benghazi-related emails that were made available to Congress. Hackett testified that he had concerns regarding Catherine Duval, an attorney who worked for the Office of Legislative affairs (and who was also involved in the Obama-era IRS scandal):
Judicial Watch: And what was what was your concern there, if you can elaborate?
Hackett: The concern was, in the 296 that there were other agencies equities in those documents, you know, potentially classified information. But any release decisions and doing a FOIA review, we would normally make a referral back to that home agency. And Ms. Duval seemed to imply that she had already done that kind of coordination. But when we asked who she had coordinated with, they were people not familiar in our regular FOIA process.
Judicial Watch: And thats people, when you the people you are referring to, thats is it within just one agency, or is that dispersed through different agencies?
Hackett: It would be different agencies
Hackett: Again, I mean, we were familiar with the our our parallel shops, you know, in other agencies, similar to IPS; we knew all the players there, the other Directors of the office. And, so, we contacted them, and they have not received any referrals from her. So we wondered who she was working with.
We also asked Hackett if, as he had previously stated, he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process in 2014? Hackett said he believed that some bureaus were convinced, or and analysts were convinced, once it was explained to them, to redact something but use a B5 exemption [which applies to deliberative process and allows government officials to discuss policy without the discussions being made public, or attorney client privilege] versus a B1 [national security] exemption.
When we asked if he thought that was appropriate, Hackett responded, No, I didnt, and said he voiced that concern to his boss, Grafeld.
Hackett testified that his initial concern over Secretary Clintons email use arose in June 2013 when he said he viewed a photograph on the WTOP website of Clinton sitting on a plane with a BlackBerry. And that got me thinking that, well, what what was that BlackBerry? Was it a government BlackBerry? And if so, where were the emails relating to that BlackBerry? Hackett said.
Hackett testified he went to then-IPS Director Sheryl Walter after seeing that photograph and suggested that we had to be careful about what sort of responses we made relating to Hillary Clintons emails, when it if there was a No Record Located response that was being given out. In fact, I advised Sheryl that we should stop giving No Record Located responses until we come to kind of come, you know find out what that BlackBerry meant, come to ground about what was known about the former Secretarys emailing habits.
Asked how Walter responded, Hackett said, My recollection is, she agreed with me.
The other thing that we did, or I did at that time, was, we wanted to find out what this BlackBerry meant, Hackett testified. So we tasked my recollection is, we verbally tasked Tasha Thian, the departments Records Manager at that time, to look into the BlackBerry. And I believe Tasha contacted Clarence Finney in the Secretarys office to ask him what he knew about the former Secretarys emailing habits.
Asked what Thian found out, Hackett responded: I dont recall exactly what she found out, but she didnt find out much. Tasha also contacted the part of the State Department thats part of the intelligence community, and Intelligence and Research Bureau, to ask to see if there were any classified emails on in the classified systems that the Secretary might have produced. And I do recall that I think Tasha came back with the answer that they did not have any.
Hackett went on to say that, There was a lot of confusion about exactly what that BlackBerry, you know, meant at that time. You had a concern as to how the department was responding to FOIA requests that related to Secretary Clintons emails after you saw the photograph of the Secretary holding a BlackBerry. My recollection is and I had only been there two months that someone had told me that, and I cant remember that she did not have an email account, a government email account. So there was obviously a contradiction here when, you know, theres that photograph. So we were just trying to find out what was the ground truth. So thats why I had a concern about issuing responses that said no records had been located.
Hackett also said he knew of other employees in the State Department who were using their personal email accounts for government business and that some were senior officials, too.
Asked who the senior officials were, Hackett responded: I cant remember the time frame, but the IG did a couple of studies, reviews. I think the Ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy, was cited as using her personal email account. Thats one that comes to my mind.
Hackett said: We knew that some employees at times had a personal email address for Hillary Clinton, and that they might forward something to her at times. Thats the only thing that we knew. At that time I did not know who those employees were. I mean, the the gist of that email I remember was one person saying to the other person, dont use that remember, youre not supposed to use that email. But I dont remember who those people were. I think one of them might have been in Public Affairs.
Heres my take on his testimony. Its disturbing. It points to an Obama administration conspiracy to hide and destroy Hillary Clinton emails. Even worse, the testimony suggests Clintons Benghazi emails were under-classified in order to protect Hillary Clinton (and mislead Congress). Attorney General Barr needs to prioritize reopening the Clinton email investigation.
Oh WOW!!! Blockbuster! Oh I’m excited. Text me when all this unfolds.
Which the FBI and DOJ already know.
Yeah. Wake me up after I’m dead.
Has anybody said BOOM yet?
The culled e-mail exists somewhere
I’d guess it folds.....Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.