Posted on 05/14/2016 10:04:14 AM PDT by jazusamo
State Department Documents Reveal Clinton Political Operative Pushed the Hiring of Bryan Pagliano
Whitewater: Twelve Versions of Hillary Clinton Draft Indictment, 451 Pages, Withheld By National Archives
Hillary Clinton Knew Almost Immediately About Security Risk of Using Private Blackberry
State Department Documents Reveal Clinton Political Operative Pushed the Hiring of Bryan Pagliano
This week we received Department of State emails showing that, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as
secretary of state, Laura Pena, a top aide to Clinton, helped push through the political appointment of Bryan Pagliano, a former Hillary for President IT director, to a political position in the IT group at the State Department.
Yes, that’s a bit odd.
The newly released documents also show the involvement of Patrick Kennedy, under secretary for management, in Pagliano’s hiring.
The emails show that others in the State Department International Resource Management (IT division) in which Pagliano would work questioned why a political appointee was being placed in the office. And the emails reveal that a political appointee could not even report directly to a superior in the International Resource Management division, raising further questions among Pagliano’s supervisors.
Before becoming Clinton’s State Department White House liaison, Pena served as the Hillary for President campaign’s Director of Hispanic Outreach and Deputy Director of Women’s Outreach, leaving that position to become the Deputy Political Director of Clinton’s Friends of Hillary PAC. In January 2009, Pena joined Clinton at the State Department where she helped secure Pagliano’s political appointment one month later.
The significance of all this: While at the State Department, Pagliano allegedly provided tech support for Hillary Clinton’s non-State.gov email system.
The new documents were obtained in response to an April 8, 2016, federal court order directing the Department of State to begin delivering materials to Judicial Watch in response to a September 3, 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit ( Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-01441)). The lawsuit was filed after State failed to comply with an August 5, 2015 FOIA request seeking the following:
All records concerning the hiring of Bryan Pagliano;
All time sheets, calendars, or similar records of Bryan Pagliano;
All records of travel to/from Chappaqua, NY. Such records include, but are not limited to, expense reports, reimbursement forms, and travel logs;
All records of Bryan Pagliano concerning, regarding, or relating to the maintenance of former Secretary Clinton’s email server. Such records include, but are not limited to, expense reports, reimbursement forms, and maintenance logs; and
All records of communications between Bryan Pagliano and any official, officer, or employee of the Office of the Secretary concerning former Secretary Clinton’s email server.
The emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the political appointment of Pagliano was expedited after Clinton aide Pena sent an initial email to Patrick Kennedy on February 23, 2009:
From: Pena, Laura
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:25 AM
To: Patrick Kennedy
Subject: Bryan Pagliano
Hi Pat,
Please let me know when you are ready to give Brian his assignment at IRM, I’d like to give him a heads up and a better idea of the position.
Many thanks,
Laura
From: Kennedy, Patrick F.
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:48 AM
To: Pena, Laura
Subject: RE: Bryan Pagliano
Laura,
Susan Swart and Charlie Wisecarver are very interested in him and were calling him to talk.
Will get you a read-out
Regards
Pat
From: Kennedy, Patrick F.
Sent: 5at Feb 28 11:48:55 2009
To: Wisecarver, Charles D [Deputy, Bureau of Information Resource Management]
Cc: Swart, Susan H [Director, Bureau of Information Resource Management]
Subject: FW: Bryan Pagliano
Charlie
How did the conversation go and have you reached an agreement?
Regards
Pat
From: Wisecarver, Charles D
To Taglialatela, Linda S [then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Human Resources]
Cc: Swart, Susan H; Fedak, Janice J
Sent: Monday, Mar 09 06:54:07 2009
Subject: Schedule C?
Linda,
Pat passed on resume of a young man who ran technology for the Clinton for President campaign. Janice and I met with him on Friday and see the value in bringing him on.
CharlieAccording to a March 25, 2016, article, despite Swart’s and Wisecarver’s compliance in moving through the Pagliano appointment, both were concerned because “Schedule C hires usually work in agencies’ executive offices, not in technical areas like an IT department.”
According to a March 25, 2016, Reuters article, despite Swart’s and Wisecarver’s compliance in moving through the Pagliano appointment, both were concerned because “Schedule C hires usually work in agencies’ executive offices, not in technical areas like an IT department.”
Reuters reported that a letter from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) to Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy in mid-March addressed those concerns. And the emails obtained by Judicial Watch revealed the extent of Swart’s and Wisecarver’s misgivings about the political nature of the Pagliano appointment:
From: Raymos, Jeanne N [former Director, Executive Resources and Performance Management]
Sent: Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:08 PM
To: Wiscarver, Charles D
Subject: RE: Schedule C – Bryan Pagliano
Charlie, As a Schedule C, Bryan must report to a PAS [Presidential Appointee requiring Senate confirmation], and since Ms. Swart is not a PAS, the PD should identify U/S Kennedy as the supervisor.
From: Wisecarver, Charles D
To: Swart, Susan H
Sent: Wed March 11 21:45:45 2009
Subject: FW: Schedule C – Bryan Pagliano
Your not a PAS! What is a PAS? Is this a reference for a confirmed A/S?
From: Swart, Susan H
Sent: Wed March 11, 2009 9:53 PM
To: Wisecarver, Charles D
Subject: RE: Schedule C – Bryan Pagliano
I don’t know what a pas is. PFK [Patrick F. Kennedy] specifically said we didn’t need to be pol apptees but it sure sounds like we do. I am going to ask him. What a bunch a
On May 4, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch “discovery” in another FOIA lawsuit ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)) in which Judicial Watch can take testimony from Pagliano and Kennedy.
These documents show that politics played a role in Clinton email witness Brian Pagliano’s hiring at the State Department. Why place a political appointee in the IT department of the State Department? It is no coincidence that this same controversial political hire helped Hillary Clinton with her illicit email system.
Meantime, we have learned that the State Department supposedly can’t find the main compute file containing Pagliano’s State Department’s email records. According to Politico, the Obama State Department thinks we should be satisfied that some of his emails ended up in other employees’ files.
This game is not surprising. The State Department first gave only a few Pagliano documents, but we pushed back at the agency because the public record showed there were more documents. Sure enough, that led to this latest batch of records that were only found because we wouldn’t be fooled by the Obama gang.
We expect more records soon, and Mr. Pagliano’s testimony to Judicial Watch attorneys should happen over the next few weeks.
In the meantime, here, via Fox News, is a good summary of Clinton email developments featuring Judicial Watch.
Whitewater: Twelve Versions of Hillary Clinton Draft Indictment, 451 Pages, Withheld By National Archives
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
I wonder if Trump, if elected of course, could make his primary labor a process of draining the swamp and making lifetime examples of out all these corrupt folks. Examples— Bill, Hillary, Obama, Koskinen, Lerner,and on and on.
200 years in prison for this crooked old skag!
Yep...Indictments, convictions and long sentences are surely deserved by these criminals.
In my view Trump will clean house in the Justice Department which would be a huge step forward. If they would then review these cases and indict for any crimes ignored in this administration many of them would be indicted.
That may be too much to hope for but it seems to me it’s a possibility.
<><>State Dept personnel under Hillary may be facing charges of misleading a US court WRT the court's request for documents...and for tampering w/ evidence.
<><> And what of Bill's culpability? The first server Hillary used was the one in their Chappaqua house for Slick/s use when he left the White House......against the advice of Slick/s people.
<><> At some point Hillary went from Chappaqua to a server managed by an outside company. Pagliano probably had some involvement in the migration (if not sole responsibility).
<><> Hillary obviously had to keep her multiple pay-to-play Foundation business off government computers. Fortunately whether it was Pagliano or someone else, the file deletion/wipe was less than professional.
<><> Pagliano’s dual role as: 1) a tax-paid US government employee, and, 2) Hillary's personal employee, opens a whole new arena for investigation.
<><> What was Pagliano’s day-to-day State Dept job? What did he actually do, not just his job description, but actual work accomplishments? Is there a paper trail showing he did any actual work at all, or was the State “job” just a make-work position to get him on the tax-paid payroll in return for his services to Clintons?
<><> Pagliano listed himself on LinkedIn as a political-appointee saying he “Serves as strategic advisor and special projects manager to the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) / Deputy Chief Information Officer (DCIO) overseeing the operations of the Information Resource Management (IRM) bureau.”
<><> Pagliano being employed, by his own admission, at such a high level inside State’s IT structure assures that State’s most senior info officers knew about Clinton’s email setup, and apparently did not, or were not, able to stop it. Unless Brian never told his supervisor about his "other" job.
=============================================
And what abut Sid Blumenthal? He had inside govt info and was constantly in touch w/ Secy Hillry.
<><> For public consumption, Sid was beng touted as a Clinton Foundation hire---the factotum hired to preserve Bill's pesidential legacy (cue laugh machine).
<><> Sid's emails show he had classified info almost verbatim (as confirmed by the NSA).
<><> Blumenthal was urging Hillary to bomb Libya b/c he had profit-making business interests predicated on a new Libyan govt.
<><> Sid also used scare tactics----that Obama would lose reelection if they didn't bomb Libya.
Hillary passed on this information to Obama.....did he know it came from a person he banned from govt employment?
Thanks, Liz! Excellent post and points.
RICO the conspirators...
Bump!
Dear Karma:
PLEASE get your chit together when it comes to the Clintons! Hurry! You MUST do something before Hillary! strokes out, or Slick dies from some STD brain infection!
Sincerely,
All Americans, Everywhere
Outstanding post, I’m with you my FRiend! ;-)
The last time I saw a number mentioned was at least 12 years ago, so it has most likely increased since then. But 12 years ago about 3300 jobs in Washington were direct political appointees. These were people who the president owed favors to. One of the jobs was managing the office that controls the two or three full time employees who monitor the no-man’s land (which, as I recall is 50 feet wide) separating the US from Canada. Nobody is allowed to fence it or build a structure. The management job, as I recall, paid something like $225k and the manager under any president had NEVER been to his office. It was just a political gimme.
I would not be surprised to find out that the number is 10,000 jobs now. The Clinton White House had something like 3,300 employees most of which didn’t really have anything to do. (For contrast, FDR fought all of WWII with around 500 with no cell phones, faxes or computers.)
There was a searchable cache of the emails, but I lost the link. Has that website kept up with (and cataloged) all the recent/current dumps? Specifically interested in all emails from December 1, 2012 through the end of February 2013.
I honestly don’t know. Here’s their archive link, they have a column on right separating by catagories, dates and tags.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.