PDA

View Full Version : The 25 questions Hillary must answer under oath



TheSanityAnnex
08-30-2016, 06:13 PM
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it submitted questions (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hillary-interrogatories-01363/) to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Clinton’s answers, under oath, are due on September 29. On August 19, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch further discovery on the Clinton email matter and ordered (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-interrogatories-depositions-hillary-clintons-email-system/) Clinton to answer the questions “by no later than thirty days thereafter….” Under federal court rules, Judicial Watch is limited to twenty-five questions.
The questions are:


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.



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.



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?



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.



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?



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.



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.



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?



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?



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?



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?



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.



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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?



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?



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.



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?



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.



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.

“These are simple questions about her email system that we hope will finally result in straight-forward answers, under oath, from Hillary Clinton,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
In his opinion (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-opinion-clinton-deposition-01363/) ordering Clinton to answer written questions under oath Judge Sullivan wrote:

The Court is persuaded that Secretary Clinton’s testimony is necessary to enable her to explain on the record the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-submits-email-questions-hillary-clinton-written-answers-oath-due-september-29/

Reck
08-30-2016, 06:18 PM
Softball questions, no?

CosmicCowboy
08-30-2016, 06:33 PM
Lol. I can't wait to see the new Clinton "definition of is" responses. It should be pretty fucking funny.

TheSanityAnnex
08-30-2016, 06:35 PM
I'm expecting 25 different versions of I do not recall.

spurraider21
08-30-2016, 06:38 PM
there will probably be various objections, calling questions vague and ambiguous, irrelevant, etc. will be interesting to see how her lawyers answer these

Reck
08-30-2016, 08:55 PM
there will probably be various objections, calling questions vague and ambiguous, irrelevant, etc. will be interesting to see how her lawyers answer these

:lol

What a joke. She should have been made to answer them in person in court.

This is like your teacher giving you a test and letting you take it home where you can cheat it out.

FuzzyLumpkins
08-30-2016, 08:58 PM
Federal court denied their request for a deposition so they are trying this tactic instead? Right wing jurists are the worst.

vy65
08-30-2016, 09:12 PM
So what's going on with this? They're making her answer some rogs but she won't have to be deposed? Was there a lawsuit filed?

spurraider21
08-30-2016, 09:14 PM
:lol

What a joke. She should have been made to answer them in person in court.

This is like your teacher giving you a test and letting you take it home where you can cheat it out.
no, this is a very routine, typical legal method of discovery. its an interrogatory, not a deposition

still, her answers are under oath

ElNono
08-30-2016, 09:14 PM
there will probably be various objections, calling questions vague and ambiguous, irrelevant, etc. will be interesting to see how her lawyers answer these

Exactly what I was thinking... this whole thing will be "answered" by her lawyers...

spurraider21
08-30-2016, 09:17 PM
So what's going on with this? They're making her answer some rogs but she won't have to be deposed? Was there a lawsuit filed?
if there are interrogatories, the answer should be clear tbh

vy65
08-30-2016, 09:21 PM
if there are interrogatories, the answer should be clear tbh

I'm not familiar with FOIA requests. I wasn't aware those were filed in federal court. Maybe you can fill us in on that.

In any event, you can't usually serve interrogatories on a non-party in Texas state court. Hence my confusion.

So no, it's not necessarily clear.

vy65
08-30-2016, 09:22 PM
I'm not familiar with FOIA requests. I wasn't aware those were filed in federal court. Maybe you can fill us in on that.

In any event, you can't usually serve interrogatories on a non-party in Texas state court. Hence my confusion.

So no, it's not necessarily clear.

I should add the FOIA request is styled as Judicial Watch vs. Dept. of State. So I don't know if HRC is a named party.

spurraider21
08-30-2016, 09:28 PM
I'm not familiar with FOIA requests. I wasn't aware those were filed in federal court. Maybe you can fill us in on that.

In any event, you can't usually serve interrogatories on a non-party in Texas state court. Hence my confusion.

So no, it's not necessarily clear.
its in federal court, not texas state court

and i cant come up with a scenario where you can have interrogatories without a lawsuit in place

boutons_deux
08-30-2016, 09:32 PM
Judicial Watch! :lol VRWC scumbag attack dog, full of harassing, witch hunting bullshit.

vy65
08-30-2016, 09:33 PM
I know it's not in TX state court, I mentioned that by way of reference.

FRCP 33 is similar in that it authorizes a party to serve interrogatories on another party. From what I can tell, HRC is not a party. So making her answer the rogs and not sit for a deposition (which is the standard protocol for a non party witness) is odd. That's why I asked if suit were filed as opposed to some other weird FOIA procedure that I'm not familiar with.

ElNono
08-30-2016, 11:43 PM
I know it's not in TX state court, I mentioned that by way of reference.

FRCP 33 is similar in that it authorizes a party to serve interrogatories on another party. From what I can tell, HRC is not a party. So making her answer the rogs and not sit for a deposition (which is the standard protocol for a non party witness) is odd. That's why I asked if suit were filed as opposed to some other weird FOIA procedure that I'm not familiar with.

IIRC, the lawsuit was filed because State didn't respond to the FOIA request in a timely manner. The interrogatory would be part of the discovery process in the lawsuit.

ducks
08-31-2016, 12:44 AM
Judicial Watch! :lol VRWC scumbag attack dog, full of harassing, witch hunting bullshit.

she is yes a witch you sir are correct

CosmicCowboy
08-31-2016, 07:47 AM
http://theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2015-10-28-at-7.37.12-AM.png

boutons_deux
08-31-2016, 08:07 AM
What "standing" does JW have to force Clinton to speak? A Repug puppet judge?

RandomGuy
08-31-2016, 12:34 PM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/256412/story_image/emails.jpg?1464390981

ducks
08-31-2016, 12:55 PM
What "standing" does JW have to force Clinton to speak? A Repug puppet judge?

Who appointed judge?

spurraider21
08-31-2016, 01:13 PM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/256412/story_image/emails.jpg?1464390981
hillary deleted hers while she was sending them over to the state department. there is some context here, dude

RD2191
08-31-2016, 01:23 PM
Says who?

TheSanityAnnex
08-31-2016, 01:36 PM
What "standing" does JW have to force Clinton to speak? A Repug puppet judge?

A Repug puppet judge appointed to DC by Bill Clinton :lol

TheSanityAnnex
08-31-2016, 01:51 PM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/256412/story_image/emails.jpg?1464390981Sad to see you reduced to posting memes over the last week. Good luck finding a meme to match this next Clinton blunder.



Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept. (http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/clinton-emailed-classified-information-after-leaving-state-dept/)

Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.
On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email (https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/Clinton%20123%20Classified%20Email_1472650216.pdf) to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.
But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.
The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”



The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — [email protected] — associated with her private email server.
The email’s recipients were Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The “123 Deal” was a 2009 agreement between the United Arab Emirates and the US on materials and technological sharing for nuclear energy production.
“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” Republican National Committee research director Raj Shah told The Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”
Clinton is believed to have sent 2,101 emails that contained at least some classified information.


The Trump campaign said the latest revelation about Clinton’s email habits is more proof she can’t be trusted with national security.
“Hillary Clinton’s secret server jeopardized our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts on more than 2,000 occasions, and shockingly, it now appears her reckless conduct continued even after leaving the State Department. Hillary Clinton’s terrible judgment shows she cannot be trusted with our national security,” said Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications advisor, in a statement.

RandomGuy
08-31-2016, 04:41 PM
Sad to see you reduced to posting memes over the last week. Good luck finding a meme to match this next Clinton blunder.



http://quietmike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Stephen-Colbert-Liberal-media-bias.jpg

Honestly, I am a bit too busy to fully address your B.S. It is too voluminous. I seem to remember aptly demonstrating your failure to think critically, on several occasions.

If you can't be honest, and just want to post copy pasta, why on earth should I take more of my time to do your thinking for you?

RandomGuy
08-31-2016, 05:12 PM
How about instead of a meme, I simply remind everyone of the alternative to the woman over 60 who is sloppy with emails.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/267461/story_image/TMW2016-06-29colorEXTENDED.png?1466958377

TheSanityAnnex
08-31-2016, 05:25 PM
http://quietmike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Stephen-Colbert-Liberal-media-bias.jpg

Honestly, I am a bit too busy to fully address your B.S. It is too voluminous. I seem to remember aptly demonstrating your failure to think critically, on several occasions.

If you can't be honest, and just want to post copy pasta, why on earth should I take more of my time to do your thinking for you?

Please point me to the BS and dishonesty in this thread. Are the 25 questions false? Is Clinton sending classified information after she left office false? I used to find your posts refreshing even when I didn't agree with them. Now the meme dumps and Clinton deflections are lumping you in with the other Clinton apologists such as Reck.

TheSanityAnnex
08-31-2016, 05:27 PM
:lol "sloppy with emails"....and you want to tout yourself as an honest individual. Get your head out of the sand.

TheGreatYacht
08-31-2016, 05:36 PM
1. "Madame President, do you like the desk in the Oval Office or would you want a new one?"
2. "Are these chairs comfy enough?"
3. "Mocha or latte?"

etc. etc. etc

TeyshaBlue
08-31-2016, 10:10 PM
http://quietmike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Stephen-Colbert-Liberal-media-bias.jpg

Honestly, I am a bit too busy to fully address your B.S. It is too voluminous. I seem to remember aptly demonstrating your failure to think critically, on several occasions.

If you can't be honest, and just want to post copy pasta, why on earth should I take more of my time to do your thinking for you?

Btw, we don't know reality has liberal bias. The very statement is an oxymoron. Critical thinking.... It's not just for memes.

Th'Pusher
08-31-2016, 10:41 PM
Btw, we don't know reality has liberal bias. The very statement is an oxymoron. Critical thinking.... It's not just for memes.

Confused. We don't know reality has a liberal bias? Can you explain what you mean?

It seemed clearly a joke, to which you seem to be applying a literal meaning.

hater
09-01-2016, 06:58 AM
:lmao clintonemail.com???? :lmao


Is she really this fucking stupid??? :lmao

TeyshaBlue
09-01-2016, 07:52 AM
Confused. We don't know reality has a liberal bias? Can you explain what you mean?

It seemed clearly a joke, to which you seem to be applying a literal meaning.

I hear this statement alot and no, it's not meant as a joke. Its a well worn progressive cheer. Reality has no bias....hence the term, reality. Any bias is supplied by an observer.
I can go deeper with this if you wish, but it's fairly obviously a flawed statement. It's always rubbed me the wrong way.

Th'Pusher
09-01-2016, 04:56 PM
I hear this statement alot and no, it's not meant as a joke. Its a well worn progressive cheer. Reality has no bias....hence the term, reality. Any bias is supplied by an observer.
I can go deeper with this if you wish, but it's fairly obviously a flawed statement. It's always rubbed me the wrong way.

Hmm. I thought that was the punchline...because reality can't be biased.

TeyshaBlue
09-01-2016, 06:04 PM
Sadly, it usually isn't.

z0sa
09-01-2016, 06:06 PM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/256412/story_image/emails.jpg?1464390981

Every one of them should be held accountable. Every one of them should go down.

ElNono
10-14-2016, 12:09 AM
Clinton answers written questions under penalty of perjury in email lawsuit

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-answers-written-questions-in-email-lawsuit-229769

CosmicCowboy
10-14-2016, 07:01 AM
Gee what a surprise. More massive memory loss.

hater
10-14-2016, 07:45 AM
:lmao this bitch doesnt remember anything prior to 2015 :lol

We are so fucked :lol

SnakeBoy
10-14-2016, 11:57 AM
I wanted to make a joke about Hillary being the first POTUS with no memory but...damn Reagan!