quote:

Two other emails sent to Abedin were cited in the inspector general's report, but also did not turn up among the emails released by Clinton. Those messages to Abedin contained warnings in January 2011 from an unidentified aide to former President Bill Clinton who said he had to shut down Hillary Clinton's New York-based server because of suspected hacking attacks.

Were these emails recovered from her wiped drive? If so, what else might they have recovered?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ds.html?intcmp=hpbt2

A longtime State Department official said he assumed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using her personal email to "stay in touch with family and friends", not conduct official business.

In a two-hour deposition with the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch last week, Lewis Lukens also said he offered to set up a "stand-alone" computer for Clinton to check her personal email account, only to be told that she "does not know how to use a computer to do email."

Lukens' testimony was released Thursday, the day after the State Department inspector general released a report criticizing Clinton's email setup, saying that it violated federal records rules and cybersecurity guidelines.

The FBI is investigating possible mishandling of classified information that passed through the server, which was set up in the basement of Clinton's Chappaqua, N.Y. home. Clinton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, and did so again Thursday.

"This report makes clear that personal email use was the practice for other secretaries of state," Clinton told ABC News. "It was allowed. And the rules have been clarified since I left."

According to Lukens, he first spoke to Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills in 2009 about ways that Clinton could access her personal email without using the State Department's OpenNet system.

A longtime State Department official said he assumed that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using her personal email to "stay in touch with family and friends", not conduct official business.

In a two-hour deposition with the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch last week, Lewis Lukens also said he offered to set up a "stand-alone" computer for Clinton to check her personal email account, only to be told that she "does not know how to use a computer to do email."

Lukens' testimony was released Thursday, the day after the State Department inspector general released a report criticizing Clinton's email setup, saying that it violated federal records rules and cybersecurity guidelines.

The FBI is investigating possible mishandling of classified information that passed through the server, which was set up in the basement of Clinton's Chappaqua, N.Y. home. Clinton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, and did so again Thursday.

"This report makes clear that personal email use was the practice for other secretaries of state," Clinton told ABC News. "It was allowed. And the rules have been clarified since I left."

According to Lukens, he first spoke to Clinton's Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills in 2009 about ways that Clinton could access her personal email without using the State Department's OpenNet system.

In an email released by Judicial Watch earlier this year, Lukens initially suggested a computer that could be "connected to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check emails from her desk."

"The reason that I proposed a PC was that it would make it easier for her to log on,” Lukens said in the deposition. “And at that point, as far as I knew, there was no requirement for her to be connected to our system.”

The computer system was never installed. Lukens was told that Clinton could only send and receive email on her Blackberry smartphone.

Because Clinton's State Department office was considered a secure zone, she was unable to bring her Blackberry there. As a result, Lukens recalled "on occasion" seeing Clinton looking at her Blackberry in the hallway outside the secure area.

Lukens, who has been with the State Department since 1989, said he could not recall explicitly discussing Clinton's use of a personal email account with other officials, adding that he assumed she was using "a commercially available email account."

Lukens is the first of at least six named witnesses to be deposed about Clinton's use of a private email server to handle her correspondence during her time as America's top diplomat.

Mills is scheduled to testify on Friday. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled Thursday that recordings of her deposition are to be kept under seal over concerns the video might be used "as part of partisan attack" against Clinton.

This will be her downfall. Huma or Mills may indeed be willing to fall on the sword, but some lower level person who's just trying to plug along in the system does not.

It's going to be a fun few weeks ahead.

The way I see it, she only has one recourse. Release the Area 51 UFO protocols.

http://www.ufointernationalpro...fo-cover-up-details/

Hopefully Judicial Watches Investigation will keep the FBI Honest with their Investigation.

quote:

Lukens, who has been with the State Department since 1989, said he could not recall explicitly discussing Clinton's use of a personal email account with other officials, adding that he assumed she was using "a commercially available email account."

Either Lukens is a very unobservant employee, stupid, or incompetent or all of the above, because knowledge was wide spread in State that Clinton was off the reservation using an unsecured personal server/email address.

I don't have time to wade through the OIG report again, but here is a quote from the WoPo editorial;
""According to the report, after a staff member “raised concerns” with another official about Ms. Clinton’s personal email server, the staff was instructed “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”"

Many people knew she was in violation and complained through the chain of command but were told to "shut up". Obviously it was a violation to send sensitive info to Clinton when you knew she had an unsecure system but people were told to do it and shut-up.


All of the people in the chain of command are now very busily covering their asses.

quote:

Either Lukens is a very unobservant employee, stupid, or incompetent or all of the above

Any or all of the above, plus lying.

Two passages from the inspector general's report that ought to be hammered on:

quote:

Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again. (Inspector General Report, page 40)

and

quote:

In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department. (Inspector General's Report, page 40, footnote 159)

Source (thanks to sdy for the link)

http://www.washingtontimes.com...ders-video-cheryl-m/

regarding Judicial Watch:

A federal judge on Thursday ordered that the videotape of Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff giving a deposition this week be sealed so it can’t be used in political attacks against the former secretary of state and likely Democratic presidential nominee.

Judge Emmett G. Sullivan said the transcript of Cheryl Mills‘ testimony will be made public so the voters can know what she says. He said it was “unnecessary” to have the video released.

He extended that order to all of the depositions being taken in the open records case, which also applies to Mrs. Clinton’s closest personal aide, Huma Abedin.

Cool. Neither Hill nor any of her surrogates will be able to go on any TV show without getting marched through the depositions line by line. Instead of seeing the video over and over, whether Hill & Co. respond on-camera or not, the voters will be hearing the transcript over and over.

A new name in the email scandal


Bentel, who retired from the State Department in December 2012, was questioned in late June 2015 by the House Benghazi Committee and told investigators that he had “no memory or knowledge” of Clinton’s private email server and only learned about it from the newspapers


but now,

Senate investigators and a conservative group are zeroing in on newly revealed evidence about the activities of a now retired State Department computer specialist in orchestrating what they charge was a “cover-up” of the former secretary of state’s email practices.

John Bentel served as the chief of “Information Resource Management” — essentially, the top official in charge of internal communications, security issues and record-keeping — inside the State Department’s Executive Secretariat, the professional support staff for the secretary of state.

In late 2010, according to the inspector general’s report, two staffers inside his office, in separate meetings, raised concerns that Clinton’s private emails could contain government records that needed to be preserved — a standard requirement under a 1950 law known as the Federal Records Act.

One of the staffers told the inspector general that Bentel responded that Clinton’s private email account had been “reviewed and approved by Department legal staff” and “that the matter was not to be discussed any further.”

In fact, according to the inspector general’s report, State Department lawyers had never approved Clinton’s use of a private email server for government communications, nor were they ever consulted about it.

The second staffer who raised concerns told the inspector general that Bentel responded that the mission of the office “is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

Bentel declined to be interviewed by the inspector general

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen...state-000000777.html

We're well beyond the point of subpoenaing everyone surrounding this witch and forcing them to testify under penalty of contempt of court and subsequent jail time for "refusing to cooperate", or "declining to be interviewed". If I told my agency I was not willing to cooperate in an administrative hearing, I would be disciplined or fired.

The biggest problem is that there is not enough outrage within the population. That the queen harpy is even able to run for president, much less lead the party in the primaries is all the evidence of the disease infecting this country I need to see.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
We're well beyond the point of subpoenaing everyone surrounding this witch and forcing them to testify under penalty of contempt of court and subsequent jail time for "refusing to cooperate", or "declining to be interviewed". If I told my agency I was not willing to cooperate in an administrative hearing, I would be disciplined or fired.

The biggest problem is that there is not enough outrage within the population. That the queen harpy is even able to run for president, much less lead the party in the primaries is all the evidence of the disease infecting this country I need to see.

That process is going on.

The IG may not have subpoena powers, Congress may not have effective remedies for contempt of Congress, at least as long as the one found in contempt is the one responsible for enforcing it, but the Judicial Watch lawsuits are in court where the judges handling the cases have been willing to order discovery even in FOIA cases like this. The FBI has its ways, too.

The only thing missing from this scandal is the media rabidly pursuing and blabbing every nuance, every scrap, of detail it would encounter. It's very odd. The NYT has 20 reporters looking over Donald Trump, few if any, researching this mess. Haven't they ever heard of Woodward and Bernstein? Pulitzer Prizes, fame, fortune, book deals, being played in the movies by Redford and Whatzizname, feted and fawned over at "A" list parties by the score?

That's OK. Drudge managed to help himself to better establish his buisness by chasing down what the NYT insisted on ignoring, and self- or small-house-publishing is a far more viable path than it was forty years ago. It's no longer necessary to rely on somebody who pants for the laurels handed out by those who are afraid to be the bad guy at any Manhattan cocktail party.

quote:

If I told my agency I was not willing to cooperate in an administrative hearing, I would be disciplined or fired.

Bentel's retired - it's going to take another approach, like going after his pension (if any).

quote:

The only thing missing from this scandal is the media rabidly pursuing and blabbing every nuance, every scrap, of detail it would encounter. It's very odd. The NYT has 20 reporters looking over Donald Trump, few if any, researching this mess. Haven't they ever heard of Woodward and Bernstein? Pulitzer Prizes, fame, fortune, book deals, being played in the movies by Redford and Whatzizname, feted and fawned over at "A" list parties by the score?

^^^^^Exactly!
Those interested should go back and reread the WoPo Editorial. It does not suggest that Clinton should be indicted and withdraw from political life, or in any way be censored for her transgressions. What it suggests is that the FBI and DoJ should get off the dime and settle the matter. The implication I see is that this "settling" will allow us to proceed with the coronation and election of Queen Hillary I.

The press is anxious to have this all go quietly away---perhaps a Hillary aide or two 'fessing up to misdemeanors and being fined $50 with admonishments and agreements all around to do better next time.

When the FBI does come down hard on the Queen in Waiting, the FBI will suddenly become the devil incarnate. The MSM is not ready for an indicted Hillary Clinton.
The press should be preparing their lemmings for this, but are not, too horrible for them to contemplate I suppose.

Meantime Bernie is eating Hillary's lunch---go Bernie, bless your heart.

Meanwhile, sailor pleads guilty to taking photos in submarine... Link

I remember very clearly Saturday October 20, 1973 and the press reaction to those events. Those younger can do a search for Nixon + Saturday Night Massacre.

I can only speculate about the MSM reaction in similar circumstances if the FBI should recommend indictments without any immediate reaction from the DoJ. Some observers who know the FBI people involved suggest a series of resignations including some from the DoJ Criminal Division.

I suspect the MSM reaction would be very, shall we say; muted?

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
I remember very clearly Saturday October 20, 1973 and the press reaction to those events. Those younger can do a search for Nixon + Saturday Night Massacre.

I can only speculate about the MSM reaction in similar circumstances if the FBI should recommend indictments without any immediate reaction from the DoJ. Some observers who know the FBI people involved suggest a series of resignations including some from the DoJ Criminal Division.

I suspect the MSM reaction would be very, shall we say; muted?

One suspects that a spate of high-level resignations from the FBI would immediately result in statements from some of them that would be very damning for Hillary and the DOJ.

flashguy

If the honest, loyal and patriotic FBI people resign, what is left?
This doesn t seem like a good process.

quote:

One suspects that a spate of high-level resignations from the FBI would immediately result in statements from some of them that would be very damning for Hillary and the DOJ

Without doubt this would put more nails in the Clinton coffin.
Rock ribbed, yellow dog Democrats, who make up something more than 20% of the electorate overall, and probably more than 50% in some states, will pull that Democrat Party Lever, regardless.

However, Clinton cannot win without a good many people who will be disturbed by all of this and may just say 'no more Clintons".