Tough call on which lying hack you are to believe…
From Daily Mail: Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch told investigators she did not ask former FBI Director James Comey to refer to the Hillary Clinton email review as a ‘matter’ instead of an ‘investigation,’ according to a transcript released Monday night.
Comey claimed in his 2017 sworn testimony that Lynch ‘directed’ him to call the investigation a ‘matter’ during a September 2015 meeting.
The transcript of Lynch’s December 19, 2018 interview with a joint task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, which was released by Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins, clashes with what Comey testified under oath.
‘I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will,’ Lynch told the congressional investigators, according to the transcript.
It is not clear if Lynch is only denying specifically directing Comey on what to say in his sworn testimony, or if she is also denying telling him how to refer to the investigation publicly or to the press.
Lynch has been accused of helping stifle any investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election. The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate faced scrutiny over her use of a private email account to conduct State Department business during her time as Secretary of State under former President Barack Obama.
The incident involving Lynch and Comey took place in the midst of the Clinton email review in September 2015, before the hearing where Comey was asked about the investigation.
Comey said in his 2017 statements that he had been ‘confused and concerned’ by Lynch’s request.
‘The attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me,’ Comey testified, adding it was one of the reasons he decided to ‘step away from the department’ so the case could be credibly closed.
‘The Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms – security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on,’ Comey continued.
Comey said he knew they were getting to a place in the investigation where they would both have to speak about it publicly. ‘And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?’ Comey said. ‘And she said, ‘Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.’ And I said, ‘Why would I do that?’ And she said, ‘Just call it a matter.’’
When asked about Comey’s 2017 statements on the meeting during the congressional investigation last December, Lynch said she had been ‘surprised’ by his testimony.
‘I was quite surprised that he characterized it in that way,’ Lynch said. ‘We did have a conversation about it, so I wasn’t surprised that he remembered that we met about it and talked about it.’
‘But I was quite surprised that that was his characterization of it, because that was not how it was conveyed to him, certainly not how it was intended,’ she continued.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump and his “deplorable” supporters repeatedly called for “locking up” Hillary Clinton for her illegal use of a private email server when she was Obama’s secretary of state.
If you’ve wondered why President Trump hadn’t “locked her up,” you should know it is not for his lack of will.
Citing second-hand hearsay, Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported yesterday that in spring of this year, President Trump attempted to have Hillary Clinton and former FBI director James Comey prosecuted by the Justice Department, but was dissuaded by White House counsel Donald McGahn — “according to two people familiar with the conversation”.
McGahn warned President Trump he had no authority to order a prosecution and warned that the move could lead to impeachment.
Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, said: “Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president. Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, that the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”
Does this mean Hillary will never be prosecuted?
Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.
But on September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.
Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:
Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?
Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.
Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?
Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.
Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?
Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.
Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?
Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.
Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?
Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.
Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?
Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.
Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….
Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?
Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.
Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?
Kavanaugh: That is correct.
Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.
Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?
Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?
Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.
Interestingly, both Mark Taylor (the firefighter prophet who predicted Trump’s presidency in 2011) and former CIA officer Robert David Steele believe the Left’s rabid but unsuccessful takedown of now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was because of their fear of military tribunals.
Beginning at the 2:13 mark, Mark Taylor said:
“We just gotta walk in faith right now. With everything that is coming, people need to prepare themselves for what’s coming…. The Kavanaugh thing — everybody thought that it was about Roe versus Wade. Well it is, but it isn’t. You have to go back to the line of questioning that Lindsey Graham did. I’m paraphrasing: he asked him [Kavanaugh] in front of the entire nation. He said if a civilian is charged with treason, can they be charged under civil law or military law, and he said military law.
Sure, that was a nuclear bomb that went off in the spirit for the enemy, for the Cabal, the elites, the globalists, everyone who’s been in the corruption in this country who’s a leader and abroad…. That sent shock waves…. They were disguising it as Roe versus Wade, trying to pull on people’s emotions and their heartstrings, ‘Oh no, we can’t get rid of Roe versus Wade!”. It had nothing to do with that from these elites, people like Dianne Feinstein. It had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with the military tribunals that are coming.They know they needed a solid 5-4 [Supreme Court] vote because he [Kavanaugh] was replacing a swing vote [Anthony Kennedy] if you remember. Now, [with Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court] we have a solid 5-4 vote for anything that would come up through the Supreme Court right now and that’s what the President needed in place….
The second that Kavanaugh is confirmed, the clock starts. When he got confirmed, the clock has started. So now all these things that are starting to take place, you’re starting to see movement now, even publicly you’re starting to see movement. There was some stuff on Jeff Sessions today…. Now comes the pain. Pain is coming for these people, the justice is fixing to be served. So we have to be patient and just realize there’s a plan in place, but this Kavanaugh, Judge Kavanaugh, was a huge, huge deal.”
Beginning at the 12:30 mark in the video above, Steele is asked what is the real reason why the Democrats went after Kavanaugh. Steele said:
“This is not about Roe v Wade, this is about military tribunals…. Senator Lindsey Graham had that exchange with him [Kavanaugh]…. John McCain was executed and Lindsey Graham was pardoned, okay. [Ohio governor] John Kasich was on CNN saying McCain was executed, alright. Bottom line: McCain is dead and Lindsey Graham is now the apple of Donald Trump’s eye….
McCain sold out to the Saudis, to the Israelis, to a whole bunch of other people. McCain sold out on the POWs. McCain supported Hillary Clinton in selling Syria and Yemen to Saudi Arabia, and selling Libya to the French, and selling Uranium One to Russia. McCain and [Hillary] Clinton were actually much, much closer than people realized. He was essentially a traitor to the United States of America at mutiple levels across decades.
Lindsey Graham has had his issues, but if you look at Lindsey Graham carefully right now, you will see that he has made his peace with Donald Trump and he is now rendering vital service to the nation and God bless him…. In my humble opinion, Lindsey Graham has been born again, all is forgiven. He is now serving the Republic in a very, very important way. And the reason Kavanaugh is being taken down is because the deep state which relies heavily on the Democrats is terrified of military tribunals. We are still in a state of war. Technically, the United States is in a state of war.”
Meanwhile, in October Defense Secretary James Mattis named Col. Douglas K. Watkins, 56, as Guantanamo’s new chief war court judge. Watkins, who has experience in handling terrorism cases, succeeded Army Col. James L. Pohl who had been chief Gitmo judge until he retired in September.
Judge Watkins has served for 37 years in the Army. He enlisted after high school in 1981 and has been an active duty MP as well as a combat engineer in the Texas National Guard. He got a law degree at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and was commissioned as a judge advocate in 1995.
Military Commissions judges are drawn from a pool of all four services and serve at Gitmo as an extra duty — meaning they commute to the U.S. base in southeast Cuba for hearings and trials. (Military.com)
One last thing:
Sen. Lindsey Graham will be Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the upcoming 116th Congress, beginning January 3, 2019, where Republicans are rid of RINOs John McCain and Jeff Flake and will have an even bigger majority (53-47) in the Senate.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Shocker, not. Seemed this was SOP for members of Obama’s administration.
From NY Post: Fired FBI chief James Comey used his private Gmail account hundreds of times to conduct government business — and at least seven of those messages were deemed so sensitive by the Justice Department that they declined to release them.
The former top G-man repeatedly claimed he only used his private account for “incidental” purposes and never for anything that was classified — and that appears to be true.
But Justice acknowledged in response to a Freedom of Information request that Comey and his chief of staff discussed government business on about 1,200 pages of messages, 156 of which were obtained by The Post.
The Cause of Action Institute, a conservative watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit for Comey’s Gmail correspondence involving his work for the bureau.
The Justice Department responded that there were an eye-popping 1,200 pages of messages for Comey and his chief of staff that met the criteria.
Justice released 156 of them but refused to hand over seven emails because they would “disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” And another 363 pages of emails were withheld because they discussed privileged agency communications or out of personal privacy concerns.
Cause of Action’s CEO slammed the former top G-man for minimizing the work he did using his private account. “Using private email to conduct official government business endangers transparency and accountability, and that is why we sued the Department of Justice,” said John Vecchione.
“We’re deeply concerned that the FBI withheld numerous emails citing FOIA’s law enforcement exemption. This runs counter to Comey’s statements that his use of email was incidental and never involved any sensitive matters.”
Two days after complaining that his “mobile is not sending emails,” Comey asked an aide that the testimony he was to deliver to the Senate be sent on his private account — calling it an “embarrassing” situation.
“He [aide] will need to send to personal email I suppose,” Comey wrote. “Embarrassing for us.”
Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of Open the Government, a nonpartisan coalition that advocates for government transparency, said Comey’s practice of using personal email while investigating Clinton reeks of a double standard.
“It’s just so transparently hypocritical to have one standard for a person you are investigating and an entirely different standard for yourself when you are the one who’s enforcing the law,” Rosenberg said.
The inspector general at Justice previously slammed Comey for using his personal account for FBI business, saying it was “inconsistent” with government policy. But Comey claimed his private email use was “incidental” and only used for word processing a “public speech or public email.” He said he wasn’t sending “anything remotely classified” on Gmail and that his use was “a totally different thing” from Clinton’s.
Experts told The Postthere was a clear disconnect between what Comey said he was using his personal email for and what the Justice Department concluded he was doing after vetting his emails.
If the Justice Department accurately withheld his emails for the legal reasons cited, Comey would have been talking about substantive government business and active law enforcement matters. “He can’t have it both ways,” Rosenberg said.
“Either he used his personal email for things that were public or would be in the public domain, or he used it to discuss internal policies, investigations, etc. that might or might not be appropriately withheld under FOIA.”
A rep for Comey said he had no comment.
The 156 email pages that were released mark the first wave from Justice, with more expected soon.
The emails obtained by The Post span from 2013 to 2017, and many are heavily redacted.
In the messages, Comey discusses speeches and public statements with his aides and other routine business. There are also emails about pressing concerns like a threat of a mass shooting at a Chicago school in May 2016, changes on his protective detail and helping two American teachers with their visa processes in December 2013.
The emails show that Comey used personal email throughout his investigation into Clinton and even talked about it.
He emailed Sept. 30, 2015, to his then-Chief of Staff James Rybicki, a Fox News article link about Russian hackers trying to access Clinton’s server. “Need to be sure our colleagues across the street don’t think I actually said most of the stuff they attribute to me,” the email said.
Catherine Herridge reports for Fox News that former top FBI lawyer James Baker gave “explosive” closed-door testimony yesterday, Oct. 3, detailing for congressional investigators how Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe was handled in an “abnormal fashion” reflecting “political bias,” according to two Republican lawmakers present for the deposition — Rep. Mark Meadows (North Carolina) and Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio).
James A. Baker, who as General Counsel of the FBI had a close working relationship with former FBI Director James Comey and was a recipient of at least one Comey memo, resigned from the bureau in May this year.
Meadows and Jordan would not provide many specifics about the private transcribed interview of James Baker, citing a confidentiality agreement with Baker and his attorneys. However, the two Congressmen indicated in broad terms that Baker was cooperative and forthcoming about the genesis of the Russia case in 2016, and about the FISA surveillance warrant application for Trump campaign aide Carter Page in October 2016.
Rep. Mark Meadows said, “Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature.This witness [Baker] confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That’s extremely troubling.” Indeed, Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who opened the Russia case, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others had sent politically charged texts, and have since left the bureau.
Rep. Jim Jordan said, “During the time that…DOJ and FBI were putting together the FISA (surveillance warrant)…prior to the election — there was another source giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive.”
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the FBI’s Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators.
Baker is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week’s planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Baker, as the FBI’s top lawyer, helped secure the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Page, as well as three subsequent renewals. Prior to the deposition, Republican investigators said they believed Baker could explain why information about Christopher Steele (the British ex-spy behind the concocted Trump-“golden shower” dossier) and Steele’s apparent bias against then-candidate Trump, was withheld from the FISA court, and whether other exculpatory information was known to Rosenstein when he signed the final FISA renewal for Page in June 2017.
For his part, Rosenstein is expected on Capitol Hill on Oct. 11 for a closed-door interview. It comes after the New York Times reported last month that he’d discussed secretly recording President Trump in order to remove him from office using the 25th Amendment.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting between Rosenstein and President Trump remains in limbo: “If there’s a meeting, we’ll let you know. But at this point, they continue to work together and both show up every day and do their jobs.”
From CNN: Former FBI Director James Comey will teach a course on ethical leadership at William and Mary beginning in the fall, according to an article on the Virginia college’s website.
The course will meet primarily at the college’s Washington, DC, center and once at the campus in Williamsburg, Virginia. Comey will co-teach the course with Drew Stelljes, executive assistant professor of education and assistant vice president for student leadership, in fall 2018 and spring and summer 2019.
Comey, who graduated from the college in 1982, told the school he is “thrilled” at the chance to teach this course. “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth,” Comey says in the article. “Building and maintaining that kind of leadership, in both the private sector and government, is the challenge of our time.”
William and Mary’s president, Taylor Reveley, said in statement quoted in the article that Comey has been “deeply committed” to the college over the years. “He understands to the core of his being that our leaders must have an abiding commitment to ethical behavior and sacrificial service if we are to have good government.”
Comey led the FBI from 2013 until last year, when he was fired by President Donald Trump. Comey, as director, oversaw the investigation into whether Trump campaign members colluded with Russians who hacked the 2016 election.
The party of obstruction.
From Yahoo: The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate said on Sunday that Democrats would consider refusing to vote on a new FBI director until a special prosecutor is named to investigate President Donald Trump’s potential ties to Russia.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said his caucus has not yet made a decision on whether to withhold their votes, but added that the issue is being looked at as a way to ensure there is a thorough investigation of alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
“To have that special prosecutor, people would breathe a sigh of relief because then there would be a real independent person overlooking the FBI director,” Schumer told CNN’s “State of the Union” program.
Trump sparked a political firestorm when he abruptly fired James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week. The FBI has been investigating alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. election and possible ties between Moscow and the Trump campaign. Russia has denied the claims and the White House says there was no collusion.
Trump, who has sought better relations with Russia, has continued to question whether Russia was behind the hacking of email accounts belonging to Democrats involved in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. But Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program on Sunday there is no question that “the Russians were playing around in our electoral processes.”
He defended Trump’s decision to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office last week. “It’s in the interest of the American people, it’s in the interest of Russia and the rest of the world that we do something to see if we cannot improve the relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers in the world,” Tillerson said. Democrats have accused Trump of attempting to thwart the FBI’s probe and have called for some type of independent inquiry into the matter.
Trump has said he removed Comey because he was not doing a good job and that Comey lost the support of FBI employees.
The Justice Department began interviewing candidates for the FBI director job on Saturday. Some people under consideration include acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, New York Appeals Court Judge Michael Garcia and former Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, according to a White House official. If the Senate vote on an FBI director were to break down along strict party lines, Democrats would not have the votes to block a nominee.
Republicans control both chambers of the U.S. Congress. They hold 52 seats in the 100-member Senate, enough to approve a FBI nominee provided that no more than two Republican senators break ranks. In the event of a tie vote, Vice President Mike Pence would cast the deciding vote. “The key is getting some of our Republican colleagues to join us,” Schumer said. Republican leaders in the Senate have rebuffed calls for a special prosecutor, saying it would interfere with ongoing congressional probes.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on Sunday there may come a time when a special prosecutor is needed but not now. “Right now, it is a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. So you don’t need a special prosecutor,” Graham said on “Meet the Press.”
Loser Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid/WSOC TV photo
Via NY Post: Everything’s fine, according to the top Democrat in the Senate.
Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the 77-year-old Senate minority leader who is less than a month away from leaving government, wants his party to settle down, as he blamed Democrats’ election debacle on the director of the FBI.
“They have Trump, I understand that. But I don’t think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble,” Reid told Politico in an interview Wednesday. “I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and we probably would have elected Hillary,” Reid said, referring to FBI Director James Comey. In fact, Democrats suffered massive losses in the 2016 election, unexpectedly losing the presidency and failing to gain control of the Senate and House of Representatives. The controversial Democratic leader also defended his legacy. “I’m sure there are people more capable than I, better-looking than me, better-educated than me, smarter than me. But I’ve got the job. And I try to do the best I can with the job. … I look around and I say, ‘Well, I’m the one that has to do it.’ So I have done the best I can,” he said.
But Republicans are largely glad to see him go. “I don’t have any sense of nostalgia about Harry Reid,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) told Politico.
And yet I’m sure nothing will become of this. Corruption is the new norm in DC.
Via NY Post: A top State Department official offered a bribe — a “quid pro quo” — to an FBI official in an attempt to declassify certain emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server that were previously deemed classified, according to FBI documents released Monday. The documents allege Patrick Kennedy proposed the deal in exchange for the FBI being allowed to operate in countries where it’s currently banned.
“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo,’” states the FBI document, a summary of an interview the agency conducted in investing Clinton’s email server. “[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” the document adds.
The redactions in the FBI documents strike the name of the official who was talking with Kennedy.
During a later meeting with the FBI, CIA and other agencies, Kennedy was asked whether any of the emails in question were classified. “Making eye contact with [redacted] KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see,’” Kennedy responded.
Donald Trump’s campaign pointed to the new documents as proof that the State Department and FBI worked together to protect Clinton. “These FBI documents provide undeniable proof that Hillary Clinton colluded with the FBI, DOJ and State Department to cover up criminal activity at the highest levels. Hillary Clinton has recklessly put our national security at extreme risk,” Trump surrogate Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said in a statement to the press.
“We have men and women putting their lives on the line for this country. If any person had done a fraction of what she has done with our sensitive information, they would be criminally charged and those in our military would be court-martialed. Hillary Clinton acts as though she is above the law and therefore, she is not fit to serve as commander in chief,” Flynn added.
The FBI documents come from the more than year-long FBI investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private email server.
FBI Director James Comey announced in July that he would recommend the Justice Department not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.
It’s good to be a demorat…
Days later, Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a statement saying she agreed with Comey’s assessment — and that charges against Clinton would not be filed.
I guess some of us still care about this story. Proggies, not so much. Truth doesn’t matter to them unless they can screw republicans out of it.
From Daily Mail: Hillary Clinton used variations of ‘I don’t recall’ 21 times when asked 25 questions under oath about how she deleted 33,000 State Department emails.
Sworn written testimony obtained by Judicial Watch show the Democratic presidential candidate dodged virtually all of the questions about the correspondences she removed from her private server while she was Secretary of State.
A federal judge ordered Clinton’s legal team to turn over written responses to questions concerning the so-called ‘homebrew’ server. Clinton signed the document containing the answers, written by her lawyers on her behalf, on Monday under ‘penalty of perjury’. The former First Lady sidestepped most of the questions, and insisted that she did not ‘recall’ if anyone told her she could be breaking the law by deleting the emails. She also said she could not remember ever being warned about hacking threats to her private account or server. But her campaign has insisted the answers are consistent with what she has said before.
The questions addressed a number of issues. She was asked why she used the private server, ‘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,’ her lawyers wrote for one answer.
Most of the responses to questions begin with the phrase: ‘Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories.’
Clinton’s answers provided no new information beyond what she told FBI agents during the recently closed investigation into whether she and her staff mishandled classified information. But it does suggest she has contradicted sworn statements she has made in the past.
According to the court documents filed this week, Clinton was asked when she decided to use her private email account to conduct government business and whom she consulted in making that decision. Clinton said she recalled making the decision in early 2009, but she ‘does not recall any specific consultations regarding the decision.’
Read the rest of the story here.