Judicial Watch - Page 2 of 2 - THE RIDGEWOOD BLOG.

Posted on June 2, 2017 June 27, 2021

Judicial Watch: New Clinton Emails Show Classified Information Sent to Clinton Foundation Employees

bill-and-hillary-clinton-foundation-global-initiative-AFP-640x480

Emails also show Abedin providing government plane and hotel reservations to Chelsea Clinton for trip to Germany while employed at Clinton Foundation

Abedin tells Band that she has ‘hooked up’ people from the Russian American Foundation with ‘the right people’ at the State Department

June 2,2017

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC, Judicial Watch today released 2,078 pages of documents revealing more instances of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified information via an unsecured email server. They also show Clinton’s daughter Chelsea and others involved with the Clinton Foundation receiving special favors from Huma Abedin, the former secretary’s deputy chief of staff.

The records were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”

The new documents included 115 Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 432 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

On December 6, 2010, Secretary Clinton shared classified information with non-U.S. government employees Justin Cooper, then-aide to President Clinton who helped manage Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system, and Clinton Foundation director Doug Band (neither of whom held security clearances). The email instructs her aide Oscar Flores to “print for Bill” (presumably Bill Clinton). The email exchange, which involved allegations of the theft of foreign aid by Bangladeshi banker and major Clinton Foundation donor Muhammad Yunus, started with an email from an unidentified person to State Department official Melanne Verveer, who forwarded her exchange on to Hillary Clinton, who then sent it on to Flores, Cooper and Band.

Yunus was accused of embezzling $100 million from the Grameen Bank he founded and was removed from it, although the charges were never proven, and Yunus reportedly returned the money. Subsequently, Clinton’s State Department was accused of threatening IRS action against the Bangladesh prime minister’s son in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of Yunus.

In a similar instance on March 14, 2011, State Department official Maria Otero emailed Clinton information about the Grameen Bank/Foundation that was again deemed classified as Confidential by the State Department and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D) – “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy … Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Clinton then responds to Otero using her HDR22@clintonemailcom account and copies Abedin on Abedin’s unsecure email account, huma@clintonemail.com.

In May 2010, Ben Ringel, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation Judicial Watch previously documented, asked Abedin to intervene in an employment dispute on behalf of a USAID employee. Abedin agreed, telling Ringel to forward the woman’s documents to her official State Department email account.

In a May 21, 2011, email exchange sent to Abedin’s unsecure account, then- Ambassador Princeton Lyman sent information relating to his conversation with South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit that is also redacted and classified as “Confidential.”

On July 17, 2012, Abedin forwarded to her private email account for printing a call briefing sheet for Clinton’s upcoming call with Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan, which was classified Confidential and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D).

The new Abedin emails also reveal additional instances in which Clinton’s then- scheduler Lona Valmoro forwarded the former secretary of state’s detailed daily schedule to top Clinton Foundation officials.

The new emails also reveal a number of favors that were requested and carried out.

In May 2010, Abedin tells Band that she has “hooked up” people from the Russian American Foundation with “the right people” at the State Department after Abedin received a request from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner, forwarded by Clinton Foundation donor Eddie Trump (no relation to President Trump).

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com> wrote:

Hi Rina – wanted to connect on meeting at state department. Eddie trump passed on your email. Will be in touch soon.

From: Rina Kirshner
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:29 AM
To: Huma Abedin
Subject: Re: Eddie Trump/Doug Band

Ms. Abedin,
Just wanted to follow up and express our gratitude. I was contacted today by Ms. Christina Miner who invited us to be part of the US-Russia Cultural Sub-Working Group meeting next week. Thank you very much for all your assistance – if there is any way we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Rina Kirshner

From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:19:12 PM
To: Doug Band
Subject: FW: Eddie Trump/Doug Band

fyi – we hooked her up with the right people here

The Russia-American Foundation was staffed by Clinton political supporters and operatives, received over $260,000 in grants for “public diplomacy” from the Clinton State Department, and its leadership was supportive of Obama’s Russia policies.

In July 2011, when Chelsea Clinton, using the alias Diane Reynolds and the email addressdreynolds@clintonemail.com, was planning to fly to Germany to see the U.S. women’s soccer team play, her travel agent asked Abedin to confirm that Chelsea’s travel costs could be placed on her parents’ credit card. In response, Abedin tells the agent that she can “stand down” from making arrangements to get Chelsea to Germany, as Chelsea and Bari Luri, Chelsea’s Clinton Foundation chief of staff, would be made part of the “official delegation” going to the match and she would “fly on official govt plane both ways and they will take care of hotels and all transportation.” Chelsea was a fully employed Clinton Foundation executive at this time.

In July 2011, Clinton tells Abedin that she doesn’t wish to fly on the same airplane with Michelle Obama on their way to Betty Ford’s funeral: “I’d be honored to speak. Is it ok that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?”

A December 15, 2012, email chain shows that a committee of Clinton staffers, including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, was required to draft a “doctors statement” as to why Hillary supposedly fainted due to “dehydration,” causing her supposedly to hit her head and suffer a “concussion” in December 2012. The same committee then prepared a “discharge statement” when Hillary was released from the hospital.

“These shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The casual violation of laws concerning classified material and noxious influence peddling show the Clinton State Department was ‘corruption central’ in the Obama administration. No wonder Clinton’s allies in the State and Justice Departments had been slow-walking and hiding these emails.”

Posted on May 6, 2017 May 5, 2017

Court Rules State Department Must Release Clinton Emails Detailing Obama Response to Benghazi

what-difference-does-it-make-meme-generator-what-difference-does-it-make-ee8d52_zps7f4cd1051

May 5,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washinton DC, Judicial Watch today announced that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ordered the U.S. Department of State to turn over to Judicial Watch “eight identical paragraphs” of previously redact material in two September 13, 2012, Hillary Clinton emails regarding phone calls made by President Barack Obama to Egyptian and Libyan leaders immediately following the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. Both emails had the subject line “Quick Summary of POTUS Calls to Presidents of Libya and Egypt” and were among the emails stored on Clinton’s unofficial email server. Judge Jackson reviewed the documents directly and rejected the government’s contention that the records had been properly withheld under the FOIA B(5) “deliberative process” exemption.

Judge Jackson ruled: “the two records, even if just barely predecisional, are not deliberative. [The State Department] has pointed to very little to support its characterization of these two records as deliberative, and the Court’s in camera review of the documents reveals that they do not fall within that category.”

The full emails may reveal what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew about the September 11, 2012, terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Following Judge Jackson’s March 20 ruling, the State Department asked the court to reconsider. The State Department argued that, due to an internal “mistake,” it failed to claim that the emails were classified and, therefore, exempt from production under FOIA Exemption B(1).

In response, Judicial Watch argues that the failure was not a mistake, but instead was part of a deliberate effort by the State Department to protect Clinton and the agency by avoiding identifying emails on Clinton’s unofficial, non-secure email server as classified.

Judicial Watch’s filing cites an interview of an FBI employee who told federal investigators that top State Department official Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to keep Clinton’s emails unclassified. The employee told the FBI he “believes STATE ha[d] an agenda which involves minimizing the classified nature of the CLINTON emails in order to protect STATE interests and those of CLINTON.” [Emphasis in original]

Judicial Watch’s filing also cites an interview of a State Department employee who told the FBI that the State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel interfered with the FOIA processing of email from Secretary Clinton’s server, instructing reviewers to use Exemption B(5) (deliberative process exemption) instead of Exemption B(1) (classified information exemption). According to the FBI interview:

STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau upgraded several of CLINTON’s emails to a classified level with a B(1) release exemption . [Redacted], along with [Redacted] attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, called STATE’s Near East Affairs Bureau and told them they could use a B(5) exemption on a upgraded email to protect it instead of the B(1) exemption. However, the use of the B(5) exemption, which is usually used for executive privilege-related information, was incorrect as the information actually was classified and related to national security, which would be a B(1) exemption.

Judicial Watch argues:

An agency’s deliberate withholding of a FOIA claim, either to gain a tactical advantage or, as appears to be the case here, to protect the agency’s interests and those of its former head, is “a motive undoubtedly inconsistent with FOIA’s broad remedial purpose …” It “counsels denying the Government’s request.”

The emails in question were sent to then-top administration officials, including Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan, Special Assistant Robert Russo, and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.

“Does President Trump know his State and Justice Departments are still trying to provide cover for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “An extraordinary court ruling that could result in key answers about the Benghazi outrage is being opposed by the Trump administration. This may well be an example of the ‘deep state’ trying to get away with a cover up – if so then the Trump administration must put a stop to it.”

Judicial Watch obtained the original documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)). The lawsuit was filed on September 4, 2014, after the State Department failed to respond to a June 13, 2014, FOIA request seeking:

All records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
The timeframe for this request is September 11-15, 2012.

Judicial Watch’s numerous FOIA lawsuits have forced the State Department to release hundreds of Benghazi-related documents.

Posted on April 15, 2017 June 27, 2021

Judicial Watch Calls upon Office of Congressional Ethics to Investigate Whether Rep. Schiff and Rep. Speier Disclosed Classified Information

April 14,2017

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today sent a hand-delivered letter to the chairman and co-chairman of the House Office of Congressional Ethics calling for an investigation into whether Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) “disclosed classified information to the public in violation of House ethics rules.”

Citing the ethics complaints filed against House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) charging that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, regulations, or other standards of conduct,” Judicial Watch wrote:

If the standard for filing a complaint or opening an ethics investigation is that a member has commented publicly on matters that touch on classified information, but the member does not reveal the source of his or her information, then the complaints against Chairman Nunes are incomplete insofar as they target only Nunes. At least two other members of the House Intelligence Committee have made comments about classified material that raise more directly the very same concerns raised against Chairman Nunes because they appear to confirm classified information contained in leaked intelligence community intercepts.

On March 21, 2017, the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff spoke to an audience at the Brookings Institute in which he commented on an intelligence community intercept of a December 29, 2016 conversation between Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislayak and retired U.S. Army General Michael Flynn, who had been selected by then-President Elect Donald Trump to serve as National Security Advisor. Both the fact of the conversation and the conversation’s contents were leaked to the news media and reported widely. In his Brookings Institute speech, Rep. Schiff stated:

And then you have leaks that expose malfeasance or illegality. Now, I put that kind of leak, I put the Flynn leak in that category. And what was most disturbing to me, frankly, about that was: here you had a situation where the president is informed that his national security advisor . . . has lied to the vice president, and probably others . . . about a conversation with the Russians over sanctions imposed over hacking in the election to help the president.

***

Likewise, an April 3, 2017 report in the Daily Caller quotes Representative Jackie Speier as commenting publicly on both the contents of the Kislayak-Flynn conversations and Flynn’s subsequent “unmasking” as a U.S. person incidentally intercepted by the intelligence community:

Now, if in fact, it was unmasked and if it was General Flynn. You have to understand the context in which it was unmasked. We do know that. Ambassador Kislayak and General Flynn were freelancing sanctions relief at the end of December, when he had no portfolio in which to make any kind of negotiations with Ambassador Kislayak.” [Emphasis added]

Like Rep. Schiff, Rep. Speier did not disclose how she knew about the conversation between Ambassador Kislayak and General Flynn or about General Flynn’s “unmasking,” but the statement attributed to her also appears to confirm the contents of leaked, classified information.

Judicial Watch concludes by asking “the Office of Congressional Ethics conduct a preliminary investigation into whether Rep. Schiff and Rep. Speier disclosed classified information to the public in violation of House ethics rules.”

“At least two leading Democrats, Reps. Schiff and Speier, on the House Intelligence Committee seem to have improperly disclosed classified information,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “While the Ethics Committee examines Rep. Nunes’s innocuous statements on Obama’s surveillance on the Trump team, it ought to expand its investigation to include the other members of the Intelligence Committee who seem to have flagrantly violated the rules.”

Posted on October 14, 2016 October 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton “does not recall” any specific consultations regarding the decision to use the clintonemail.com account for official State Department business

hillary-clinton-what-difference-does-it-make

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath

OCTOBER 13, 2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

(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.

Below is text from the document filed with the court today:

NON-PARTY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON’S RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to the Court’s August 19, 2016 order and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Non-Party Hillary Rodham Clinton hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories dated August 30, 2016. The General Objections and the Objections to the Definitions set forth below are incorporated into each of the specific responses that follow. Any specific objections are in addition to the General Objections and Objections to the Definitions, and failure to reiterate a General Objection or Objection to the Definitions does not constitute a waiver of that or any other objection.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that any discovery of Secretary Clinton is unwarranted in this case, for the reasons set forth in Secretary Clinton’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #102) and Surreply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #109), and as stated by Secretary Clinton’s counsel during the Court hearing on July 18, 2016. Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories notwithstanding this objection, subject to the other objections stated herein.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case. The Court permitted discovery of Secretary Clinton on the topics of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business,” as well as “the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s e-mails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.” Dkt. #124, at 14, 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories insofar as they seek non-privileged information related to those topics.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information relating to events that occurred, or actions taken by Secretary Clinton, after her tenure as Secretary of State. Such post-tenure actions or events are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about Secretary Clinton’s use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails that were personal in nature, as such use is not within the scope of the permitted topics set forth in General Objection No. 2. Secretary Clinton will construe the Interrogatories to ask only about her use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails related to State Department business.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records. This action arises under FOIA, which does not govern management, retention, or preservation of federal records. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980). Accordingly, management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.

Secretary Clinton objects to Instruction No. 1 insofar as it purports to require Secretary Clinton to provide information that is not within her personal knowledge. The purpose of the limited discovery permitted by the Court is to obtain Secretary Clinton’s “personal knowledge of her purpose in using the [clintonemail.com] system.” Dkt. #124, at 16; see also id. at (directing Plaintiff “to propound questions that are relevant to Secretary Clinton’s unique first-hand knowledge”). Secretary Clinton is answering these Interrogatories based on her direct personal knowledge. She is not undertaking to provide information known only to other persons, including but not limited to her attorneys, representatives, persons acting under, by, or through her, or subject to her control or supervision, or other persons acting on her behalf.

Secretary Clinton objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the production of information that is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. Secretary Clinton will respond only to the extent privileged or otherwise protected information is not required and to the extent that the Interrogatory is not otherwise objectionable.

Secretary Clinton objects to Instruction No. 5 insofar as it purports to require Secretary Clinton to identify the factual and legal basis for a claim of privilege. Secretary Clinton is not providing herewith a privilege log.

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

Secretary Clinton objects to the definition of “Clintonemail.com email system” insofar as it refers to e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com e-mail account after her tenure as Secretary of State. Information concerning the e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com account after her tenure as Secretary of State is not relevant to the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com account during her tenure as Secretary of State, and therefore is outside the scope of the permitted discovery. In answering these Interrogatories, Secretary Clinton will construe the term “Clintonemail.com email system” to refer to the e-mail system(s), server(s), provider(s), and infrastructure used to host her clintonemail.com e-mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Secretary Clinton objects to the definition of “Clintonemail.com account” insofar as it refers to e-mail addresses used by other individuals ending in the domain name “clintonemail.com.” In answering these Interrogatories, Secretary Clinton will construe the term “Clintonemail.com account” to refer to hdr22@clintonemail.com, which was the clintonemail.com account used by Secretary Clinton during her tenure.

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as outside the scope of permitted discovery. The clintonemail.com system, as that term is defined in the Instructions and subject to Secretary Clinton’s objection to that definition, consisted of equipment set up to host e-mail for President Clinton’s staff. Information regarding the creation of that system, including the reasons for its creation, is irrelevant to this lawsuit and outside the scope of permitted discovery. The Court permitted discovery in this case on the question of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.” Dkt. #124, at 17 (emphasis added). That question is the subject of Interrogatory No. 2, which is answered below.

Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.

Response: In the Senate, when Secretary Clinton began using e-mail, she used a personal e-mail account for both work-related and personal e-mail. Secretary Clinton decided to transition from the account she used in her tenure at the Senate to the clintonemail.com account. She recalls that it was created in early 2009. Secretary Clinton did not set up the account. Although Secretary Clinton does not have specific knowledge of the details of the account’s creation, her best understanding is that one of President Clinton’s aides, Justin Cooper, set up the account. She decided to use a clintonemail.com account for the purpose of convenience.

When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?

Response: Secretary Clinton recalls deciding to use a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business in early 2009. She does not recall any specific consultations regarding the decision to use the clintonemail.com account for official State Department business.

Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 4 insofar as it purports to request information about communications after her tenure as Secretary of State, which communications would be irrelevant to the purpose for the creation and operation of her clintonemail.com account while she was Secretary of State. Subject to the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall participating in any communications before or during her tenure as Secretary of State concerning or relating to her decision to use a clintonemail.com account to conduct official State Department business.

In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 5 insofar as it misstates her comments in the 60 Minutes interview that aired on July 24, 2016. In that interview, she stated that “it was recommended that [using personal e-mail] would be convenient.” Subject to that objection, Secretary Clinton states that former Secretary of State Colin Powell advised her in 2009 about his use of a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department business.

Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 6 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent it requests information about communications made to other persons that were not conveyed to Secretary Clinton. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned, she does not recall that it was ever suggested to her, and she does not recall participating in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that her use of a clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws.

Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving that objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering factors other than convenience in deciding to use a personal e-mail account to conduct official State Department business.

After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

Response: Secretary Clinton does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail. She understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her email was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.

During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

Response: Secretary Clinton understood that e-mail she sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA. She further understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.

During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that the word “manage” is vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov e-mail accounts, and Secretary Clinton understood that those e-mails were preserved in the Department’s recordkeeping systems and available to the Department in conducting searches in response to FOIA requests.

During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

Response: Secretary Clinton does not recall specifically informing the State Department’s records management personnel about her use of her clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business; she did openly communicate via her clintonemail.com account with many people in the State Department. Secretary Clinton does not recall interacting with Clarence Finney or employees of the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records.

During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 12 insofar as it requests information about requests for access to her clintonemail.com account that may have been directed to other persons that were not conveyed to her. Subject to the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall State Department personnel asking her for access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account to search for e-mail responsive to a FOIA request during her tenure as Secretary of State.

At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would bemaintained 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 bemaintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it requests information that is not within the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, Secretary Clinton states that it was her practice in conducting State Department business to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, and she did not consider how e-mails she sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department e-mail accounts would be searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests.

On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 14 as seeking information outside the scope of the permitted discovery in this case. The Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13.

In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton recalls that her November 13, 2010 e-mail exchange with Huma Abedin attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories was triggered by a problem with the State Department’s telephone system. When Secretary Clinton wrote, “This is not a good system,” she was referring to the way in which the State Department would notify her of telephone calls. Secretary Clinton does not recall what precisely she meant by the words “address” or “device.” To the best of her recollection, she meant that she was willing to use a State Department e-mail account or device if it would resolve the problems with receiving telephone calls, so long as her personal e-mails with family and friends would not be accessible to the State Department. Following this e-mail exchange, the State Department changed the way in which it notified Secretary Clinton of telephone calls, resolving the problem that triggered this e-mail.

Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State-Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton does not recall requesting a State Department-issued Blackberry or a State Department e-mail account in or around August 2011.

In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.

On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 18 as outside the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 18 on the ground that it mischaracterizes Secretary Clinton as the sender and author of the June 28, 2011 cable attached to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories as Exhibit E. During Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, all cables originating from Main State ended with the name “CLINTON.” The presence of Secretary Clinton’s name at the end of the cable was a formality, and it did not mean that she sent, authored, or reviewed the cable. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall seeing the June 28, 2011 cable attached as Exhibit E to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 19 as outside the scope of permitted discovery, as the Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 19 insofar as it requests information about whether Secretary Clinton was advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of her clintonemail.com e-mail account after her tenure as Secretary of State, which is irrelevant to the purpose for her creation and operation of the clintonemail.com account while Secretary of State and therefore outside the scope of permitted discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall being advised, cautioned, or warned during her tenure as Secretary of State about hacking or attempted hacking of her clintonemail.com e-mail account or the server that hosted her clintonemail.com account.

When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 20 on the ground that the word “manage” is vague. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering whether to allow the State Department access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account when she was preparing to leave office. She believed that her e-mails with persons with state.gov e-mail accounts were already captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems. Secretary Clinton does not recall anyone from the State Department asking her for access to her clintonemail.com e-mail account or asking her to print her work-related e-mails when she was preparing to leave office.

After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 21 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering after she left office whether she could alter, destroy, disclose, or use emails concerning official State Department business. Secretary Clinton further refers Plaintiff to her Response to Interrogatory No. 22.

In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 22 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall altering, destroying, disclosing, or using any e-mails related to official State Department business from her tenure as Secretary of State in her clintonemail.com account or instructing anyone else to do so after she left office and before her attorneys reviewed the e-mails in her clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request.

After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 23 as outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that it was her expectation that all of her work-related and potentially work-related e-mail then in her custody would be provided to the State Department in response to its request. Secretary Clinton believes that her attorneys retained copies of the e-mails provided to the State Department in December 2014, but she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process. Secretary Clinton decided that, once her work-related and potentially work-related e-mails were provided to the State Department, she had no reason to keep her personal e-mails, which did not relate to official State Department business. She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 24 on the ground that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reasons set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that the word “management” is vague. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 insofar as it requests information related to alternate or replacement servers used after Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any e-mails in her clintonemail.com email account.

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 deposeJohn 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.

Posted on December 23, 2015 December 22, 2015

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

DECEMBER 22, 2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.

Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 – NOAA is a component of the Department of Commerce. The timeframe for the requested records is October 30, 2014, through October 30, 2015, and requests all documents and records of communications between NOAA officials, employees, and contractors regarding:

The methodology and utilization of night marine air temperatures to adjust ship and buoy temperature data;
The use of other global temperature datasets for both NOAA’s in-house dataset improvements and monthly press releases conveying information to the public about global temperatures;
The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets; and
A subpoena issued for the aforementioned information by Congressman Lamar Smith on October 13, 2015.

Judicial Watch is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change. NOAA collects data in thousands of ways – from temperature gauges on land and buoys at sea, to satellites orbiting Earth. Considered the “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. In July, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to a controversial climate change study. After the agency refused to comply with the document request, Smith’s committee issued a subpoena on October 13. According to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

Judicial Watch sued the agency on December 2 and served the complaint on the agency on December 8. Less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee. That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

On November 26, Smith published an opinion editorial in The Washington Times, which accused NOAA of tampering with data to help promote global warming alarmism:

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

“We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration. The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”

Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

In late 2014, Judicial Watch litigation forced out documents withheld in response to another congressional subpoena – one issued in the Fast and Furious scandal.Thanks to the Judicial Watch lawsuit, Congress finally obtained the information it had sought for years on Obama’s gun-running scandal.

Posted on July 30, 2015 July 29, 2015

Judicial Watch: Hillary Clinton is not above the law

July 28,2015

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Judicial Watch continues to press Clinton on Various actions taken at the State Department as well as her involvement with the Clinton Foundation .But Hillary Clinton has a demonstrated record of showing contempt for the rule of law.

She refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State
She violated the law and avoided accountability by using secret email accounts as Secretary of State
She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts – much of which is now sloshing around her vanity “charity” that could be renamed “The Clinton Corruption Foundation.”This is all unacceptable.

In this country our leaders are bound by the rule of law. She must be held accountable for her actions.

Sign the petition now to demand that Hillary Clinton answer for her corruption!

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/poll/demand-answers/?source=59

Posted on July 23, 2015 July 23, 2015

Judicial Watch: New Documents Show IRS Used Donor Lists to Target Audits

JULY 22, 2015

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists to tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS. The IRS produced the records in a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking documents about selection of individuals for audit-based application information on donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220)).

A letter dated September 28, 2010, then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) informs then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman: “ I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations …” In reply, in a letter dated February 17, 2011, Shulman writes: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”

In 2010, after receiving Baucus’s letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35 percent gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000. The documents show that the IRS wanted to cross-check donor lists from 501(c)(4) organizations against gift tax filings and commence audits against taxpayers based on this information.

A gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)’s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. The documents show that the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.

But then, in February 2011, at least five donors of an unnamed organization were audited.

The documents show that Crossroads GPS, associated with Republican Karl Rove, was specifically referenced by IRS officials in the context of applying the gift tax. Seemingly in response to the Crossroads focus, on April 20, IRS attorney Lorraine Gardner emails a 501(c)(4) donor list to former Branch Chief in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel James Hogan. Later, this information is apparently shared with IRS Estate Gift and Policy Manager Lisa Piehl while Gardner seeks “information about any of the donors.”

Emails to and from Lorraine Gardner also suggested bias against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. An IRS official (whose name is redacted) emails Gardner on May 13, 2011, a blog post responding to the IRS targeting of political and other activities of 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-irs-documents-used-donor-lists-to-target-audits/

Posted on August 26, 2014 August 26, 2014

Judicial Watch: Lerner emails aren’t missing

Judicial Watch: Lerner emails aren’t missing
By Bernie Becker – 08/25/14 08:32 PM EDT

A conservative group suing the IRS said Monday that the Obama administration has acknowledged that former agency official Lois Lerner’s emails are recoverable.

Judicial Watch, which says it was among the groups that the IRS improperly scrutinized, said that Justice Department attorneys told the group late last week that the government backed up all emails in case of catastrophe.

The government lawyers added that the problem was not that the emails couldn’t be found, but that the back-up system was too onerous to search, Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, said Monday.

“This is a jaw-dropping revelation. The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails,” Fitton said in a statement, adding that the group would bring the government’s statements up with Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over the group’s lawsuit.

But an administration official with knowledge of Friday’s conversation said Judicial Watch’s statement, which runs counter to months of statements from a variety of administration and IRS higher-ups, was off-base.

The administration official said Justice Department lawyers had dropped no bombshells last week, and that Judicial Watch was mischaracterizing what the government had said.

The official said that Justice lawyers were only referring to tapes backing up IRS emails that were routinely recycled twice a year before 2013, when the investigation into the Tea Party controversy began.

The IRS has acknowledged those procedures were in place since it told lawmakers in June that Lerner’s computer crashed in 2011, leaving the agency unable to recover many of her emails over a two-year span.

John Koskinen, the IRS commissioner, has testified before Congress several times over the last two months that the tapes backing up Lerner’s emails were recycled.

“There is no newly divulged back-up system that was not previously known about,” the official said. “Government lawyers were simply referring to the back-up system at the IRS that Commissioner Koskinen had already disclosed.”

Lerner has been a central figure in the IRS investigation since May 2013, when she became the first agency official to acknowledge and apologize for the improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups.

She has since retired from the IRS, been found in contempt of Congress by the House and been referred to the Justice Department for potential criminal charges.

Judicial Watch’s Monday statement noted that Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, which outlined the IRS’s improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups, is investigating the back-up system for e-mails.

The administration official said that the inspector general is examining whether any data can be recovered from the previously recycled back-up tapes and suggested that could be the cause of the confusion between the government and Judicial Watch.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/215940-conservative-group-lerner-emails-arent-missing#ixzz3BUyOnWql

Posted on July 14, 2014 July 13, 2014

Judges Set Clock Ticking for IRS to Explain, Recover Missing Emails

Judges Set Clock Ticking for IRS to Explain, Recover Missing Emails

Philip Wegmann / July 12, 2014

The IRS has less than 30 days to detail under oath and in writing the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of former official Lois Lerner’s emails and to summarize options to recover the messages, a federal judge ruled.

Judicial Watch, a non-partisan watchdog group, has sought the documents from the Internal Revenue Service since last year as part of its ongoing lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The judge gave the IRS no more than 30 days, or until Sept. 10, to comply with the order.

Part of a greater compromise, the ruling handed down Thursday by Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington allows Judicial Watch to access the documents and limits the exposure to the scandal involving IRS targeting of conservative groups. Originally, Judicial Watch requested that IRS officials testify under oath, The Hill newspaper reported.

In a separate decision Friday afternoon, another federal judge demanded that the IRS provide additional information on Lerner’s missing emails. Ruling in a lawsuit brought by True the Vote, one of the targeted groups, District Court Judge Reggie Walton ordered the tax agency to explain the disappearance, Fox News reported.

In the Judicial Watch case, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS and the watchdog group to work cooperatively with another federal judge to recover Lerner’s emails, which IRS officials have said were destroyed when a computer hard drive crashed.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the decision “a victory for public accountability.” Fitton expressed optimism about eventual recovery of emails, calling Judge John Facciola “an expert in e-discovery.”

The watchdog group previously had said the Lerner emails “could be critical to getting to the bottom of the IRS scandal where tea party and other conservative group applications were illegally delayed by the IRS.”

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)