Clinton Files New Answers Under Oath about Email System Used It for the ‘Purpose of Convenience’

Full title: Judicial Watch: Hillary Clinton Files New Answers Under Oath about Email System – Used It for the ‘Purpose of Convenience’

Judicial Watch announced today Hillary Clinton submitted additional written answers under oath about her email system. Clinton testified that she used the controversial email system for the “purpose of convenience.” Clinton initially objected and refused to answer the questions but was ordered to do so last month by U.S. District Court Judge G Emmet Sullivan.

The court ordered Clinton to “[D]escribe the creation of the clintonemail.com domain name and the decision to set the domain up on the existing server, the date it was decided to create the domain and set it up on the existing server, who made those decisions, and when the domain became operational on the existing server.”

Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Secretary Clinton answers as follows: As Secretary Clinton prepared in late 2008/early 2009 to serve as Secretary of State, she was aware that President Clinton’s office had set up an e-mail system, but she had no role in this process. Secretary Clinton knew that President Clinton’s staff had recently upgraded that system. Secretary Clinton does not know what equipment that system used, how it was created, who decided that the system needed to be upgraded, or who else had accounts on the system. Secretary Clinton believes that one of the President’s aides, Justin Cooper, set up the system. Secretary Clinton decided to use a clintonemail.com account on the system for the purpose of convenience. Secretary Clinton recalls that the clintonemail.com account was created in early 2009.

Just wondering.....

<><> Who transported SOS Hillary’s server from NY to NJ’s Platte River Networks?
<><>Did the Secret Service (who Hillary insists had been guarding it since it was really Bill’s Library/Foundation asset) accompany and supervise the transport of the server?
<><> Per the interview with Platte River Networks, did they just take it, lock it up, not power it up, connect it to the internet, or not have it functioning as an active email server?
<><> Was there continuity of server activity between May 2013 to August 2015, or did the server go off-line starting in June 2013?
<><> Who received actual server in NJ - the name of the Platte River Networks employee/technician? What WAS it - make/model/form factor, etc.?
<><> Did the Clinton Foundation (or issuer of the RFP on Hillary’s behalf) indicate that the company that would provide data services qualified to handle national-security-level data?
<><> In various interviews and reports, Platte River Networks repeatedly stated they were to “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server. What - specifically - does that mean?
<><> What did Hillary’s RFP/contract order the data center to do specifically?
<><> Does Platte River Networks have sufficient security clearance to handle this type of contract?
<><> What were the firewall protocols in place at the time?
<><> Who - by name - had access to the server, and the administrative authorization to wipe and cleanse the server? When was that done?
<><> Does “upgrade, manage, and secure” the server mean that they PRN was given the task to remove all data from the server when it received it in June 2013?
<><> Was malware or antivirus also on the server?
<><> Was the inherent firewall, virus protection, or operating system “upgraded, managed, and secured”?
<><> Any incidents reported such as DOS attack, hacking, etc.? What were they? How were they resolved?
<><> Other than arranging for the server to be moved from NY to NJ, what was the Denver company contracted to do in relation to maintaining the server?
<><> What tangible evidence is there that the server arrived in functioning condition, was being used as an email server, was “upgraded, managed, and secured”, then wiped just prior to seizure by the FBI?
<><> Were normal and regular backup procedures executed on the server, and where would the back ups be kept?
<><> If no backups were taken, was there a disaster recovery location?
<><> Where was that? If no backups and no disaster recovery, what was the plan if the equipment failed or found to have been wiped of any functionality?
<><> Were any foreign nationals employed at Platte River Networks, or at Datto, that had access to the Clinton server?

Sen Charles Grassley writes to express concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters (Wilkerson is an atty for Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson) that inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.

“These limitations would necessarily have excluded, for example, any emails from Cheryl Mills to Paul Combetta in late 2014 or early 2015 directing the destruction or concealment of federal records. Similarly, these limitations would have excluded any email sent or received by Secretary Clinton if it was not sent or received by one of the four email addresses listed, or the email address was altered. “Further, the Wilkinson letters memorialized the FBI’s agreement to destroy the laptops. This is simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators. “The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate.” Full text of the letter follows:

The Wilkinson letters raise serious questions about why DOJ would consent to such substantial limitations on the scope of its investigation, and how Director Comey’s statements on the scope of the investigation comport with the reality of what the FBI was permitted to investigate. So we can better understand the Department’s basis for agreeing to these restrictions, please respond to the following questions as soon as possible, but no later than October 19, 2016:

1. What is the basis for the FBI’s legal authority—in any circumstance—to destroy records which are subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena?

2. Why did the FBI agree to terms that allowed it to destroy both laptops?

3. Has the FBI, in fact, destroyed any evidence acquired from the laptops or the laptops themselves?

4. Is there any circumstance in which an email from Ms. Mills to Mr. Combetta (and only Mr. Combetta) in December of 2014 or March of 2015 discovered on Ms. Mills’ laptop or Ms. Samuelson’s laptop would have been turned over to the investigative team under the terms of the Wilkinson letters? If so, please explain.

5. Given that the range of emails the FBI could view
under the terms of the Wilkinson letters were only those sent or received while Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, how did the FBI intend to investigate the laptop files for evidence of possible intentional destruction of records or obstruction of evidence given the fact many of those emails were out of the allowed date range?

6. Did the filter team identify any emails that were otherwise responsive but were not turned over to the investigative team because they were privileged? Did anyone create a privilege log for such emails?

7. How many total documents were reviewed by the filter team from both laptops? Of those, how many were deemed privileged? Of the total, how many were sent to the investigative team?

8. How many total documents were withheld from the investigative team because they fell out of the date range imposed by the June 10, 2016 agreements?

9. How many of the documents acquired by the FBI from both laptops were classified? Please list each document, the classification level, and the classifying agency.

10. The Wilkinson letters apparently provided for different treatment of email fragments from Secretary Clinton’s email addresses on the “clintonemail.com” domain versus her email addresses on the “blackberry.net” domain. Specifically, email fragments without a date sent to or received by either of the clintonemail.com addresses were included, while email fragments without a date that were sent to or received by either of the blackberry.net addresses were excluded. Please explain the difference in treatment of these email addresses.

11. The Wilkinson letters included a caveat that the FBI was not assuming custody, control, or ownership of the laptops for the purpose of any request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

a. How does that statement square with the reality that the FBI had both laptops in its possession?
b. Has DOJ ever used that statement or a similar statement to avoid compliance with FOIA?

When the NYPD confiscated Huma's husband’s laptop in the sexting case, they found scads of Hillary’s State Dept
emails on Weiner’s laptop. Huma said she put them there----to make copies for Hillary. (As if the US State Dept
doesnt have staff and equipment on-site for copying jobs).

==============================================

REFERENCE: Sen Charles Grassley also has been pressing the State Department to answer questions over Huma Abedin's lucrative govt job arrangement facilitated by then SoS Hillary. Sen Grassley wrote:

"It appears that one of Abedin's clients, the Clinton-connected Teneo Strategies founded by Doug Band---
said to be the toll booth to pay up to get access to the Clintons. Doug Band facilitated the Clintons' big buck
speaking engagements as part of the "buying access" deals.

Grassley conjectured that Huma was being compensated for gathering information for Teneo from US government sources
for the purpose of informing decisions of her consulting clients - or in other words, political intelligence.

This raises important questions about whether Abedin's dual job role was adequately disclosed to US government
officials who may have provided her information without realizing that she was being paid by private investors to
gather information for self-enrichment."--SNIP--

NOTE WELL: As a (a) US govt employee (b) with a second job consulting for Teneo, Huma had her own money-maker---
(c) Zaine Endeavors named after her son----which has never been fully investigated.

L/E found Bill Clinton and buddy Doug Band listed with over 20 phone numbers and email addresses
on Epstein's books. Having multiple communications is considered evidence pointing to money laundering."

The Clinton criminal cabal left a long, very long electronic/paper trail.

Hillary Clinton & GOOGLE Created Covert Server to Hide Classified Benghazi Emails from Congress; FBI Never Probed.
TruePundit ^ | 9/12/18 | Thomas Paine / FR Posted on 9/12/2018 by blueyon

NOTE: Since the Right-wing media has been asleep on this story for over two years — but suddenly Google’s collusion with Hillary Clinton is newsworthy, we at True Pundit wanted to highlight a story we broke in JUNE and SEPT. 2016, detailing Hillary and Google’s election collusion. That was 26 MONTHS AGO.

Also noteworthy, in this story True Pundit stated that China had hacked Hillary’s emails, per FBI sources. That also has recently “come true” so to speak in the ‘news’ recently. We broke it two years ago. We are proud that our national scoops always stand the test of time, despite misguided and partisan critics who are two years behind our reporting. Here is the original story from 2016. HEADLINE: FBI Botched Clinton Investigation: Never Disclosed Hillary, Aides Used Covert Google Server to Hide Benghazi Emails

It’s like a bad spy movie involving a third-world government. Or perhaps a slap stick comedy. The Secretary of State of the United States reading, sending, receiving sensitive emails with national security secrets, threats and classified or top secret intelligence over Google’s public Gmail. We expect this from chatting soccer moms but not from the top diplomat of the United States and her aides. (Excerpt) Read more at truepundit.com ...

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.