Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

About that one device… Hillary also used an iPad

About that one device… Hillary also used an iPad

AP FOIA request reveals iPad usage; Trey Gowdy formally requests Hillary interview with the House Select Committee

You may recall Hillary claiming she only used one device during her tenure as Secretary of State for “convenience.” You may also recall how her once device claim was instantly proven questionable when a video surfaced of her stating otherwise.

The day following Hillary’s press conference, the Associated Press filed suit against the State Department over the embattled former Secretary’s emails after repeated attempts to access records were fruitless.

Fast forward several weeks into EmailGate. Today, the AP reports Clinton was using an iPad while serving as Secretary of State, placing Clinton’s initial one device claim squarely in the Big Fat Lie category.

But it gets better. Evidently, Clinton managed to serve as the Secretary of State and only send four emails containing the word ‘drone.’ Ever. Or at least that’s what the State Department is saying:

The State Department says it can find only four emails sent between former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and her staff concerning drone strikes and certain U.S. surveillance programs, and those notes have little to do with either subject.

She asks for a phone call in one, a phone number in another. She seeks advice on how best to condemn information leaks, and accidentally replies to one work email with questions apparently about decorations.

“Accidentally replies to one work email with questions apparently about decorations…” Again, I’ll ask — What the hell was this woman doing with her time?

The AP continues:

Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, said the low number of emails provided to AP could be because the State Department uses different words to describe its operations — such as “UAV,” or unmanned aerial vehicle, instead of “drone.”

It’s also possible that Clinton and her advisers’ emails are not in the department’s archives, he said.

“If there are four, one would expect there to be quite a few more than that,” Aftergood said. “And it looks like another indication of faulty records management and retrieval at the State Department.”

As we reported, a damning report released by the Officer of the Inspector General shortly after EmailGate broke, revealed subpar document retention practices within the Department of State.

“It was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts, so those emails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet record keeping requirements and that is indeed what happened,” said former Secretary Clinton in her press conference. We now know this to be false as well.

The report also concluded that State Department employees were intentionally avoiding creating official email records, “because they do not want to make the email available in searches or fear that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions.”

On March 20, Trey Gowdy extended the subpoena deadline and formally requested surrender of Clinton’s private server to a mutually agreed upon third party. Clinton’s attorney declined the request.

Today, Gowdy sent another letter to Hillary’s counsel requesting a “transcribed interview” before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Gowdy cites numerous unanswered questions surrounding Clinton’s use of a private email account and a private server.

He reiterated the intent was not to dig into Hillary’s personal business, but to ascertain what transpired during the time gaps not documented in emails provided to the Committee. Adding, “the decision to delete these records during the pendency of a congressional investigation only exacerbates our need to better understand what the Secretary did, when she did it, and why she did it. While she has cited a variety of justifications for this arrangement, many questions and details about the arrangement remain unanswered.”

And to the matter of the server who’s contents were allegedly purged? Gowdy addressed that, too:

As you should be well aware, it is technically possible in many instances to recover electronic information notwithstanding whether it has been “deleted” or overwritten. It is precisely for this reason a neutral and objective party must have access to the server and related equipment to identify information potentially responsive to relevant laws and investigative requests.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So, the first question for her will be “How many devices did you own or use?”

We’ve known for a while the “one device for convenience” story was absurd.
1. A single device can be configured to access multiple email accounts.
2. She’s already said that classified information was transmitted through secure devices used by her staff – meaning that she was using multiple devices, they were just being carried by staff.
3. She admitted to using at least four devices (BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Mini iPad), so we know that she doesn’t really have a problem with carrying/using multiple devices.

Sammy Finkelman | March 31, 2015 at 3:51 pm

Well, we knew her reason for using only private email was a lie – that was patently obvious, but we didn’t know it was detectable lie – that is, that during that period of time, she had used more than one device. But she could say, she only got the iPad later, but when she first was sworn in as Secretary of State she didn’t have an iPad.

The committee had subpeonaed her server and they gave her a short deadline. Only up against that deadline, did David Kendall write that all her messages had been deleted in December after the State Department indicated (he says) that they had no more requests.

I suspect there is something that could be learned from that server. At the minimum, that extraordinary efforts were made to delete things. Or they didn’t just delete, but forged some data.

So I guess yoga doesn’t too much for a cankle problem …

It sure makes her ditzy to have her accidentally respond to Huma’s email about a drone strike by responding,
“I like the idea of these,” she wrote to Abedin. “How high are they? What would the bench be made of? And I’d prefer two shelves or attractive boxes/baskets/ conmtainers (sic) on one. What do you think?”

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Mercyneal. | April 1, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Hillary to Huma Abedin, after Huma Abedin asked her if she meant to send that message to her:

    Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad, I’m not sure replies go thru

    That seems to indicate that Huma Abedin sent an e-mail message (about something else – not this!!) to Hillary Clinton’s ipad.

    Hillary’s excuse for asking if Huma Abedin received her other e-mail message may be a lie.

    It may be intended for anyone later seeing the message, (and they are going to see it I suspect she suspects because I suspect it was sent TO Huma Abedin’s State Department address) so these later readers should think that Huma Abedin’s email to Hillary Clinton’s ipad was an experiment.

    The real reason she isn’t sure Huma Abedin got her reply to the secret message is because she had just selected the wrong e-mail address on her smartphone and not noticed it, and now she wondered if she had done that on her ipad too, where it was easier to select the wrong address.

    Maybe she thought she just wasn’t alert that morning, and she had done it twice. And it was very important to ask, because she didn’t want anyone else to see that other email she sent.

    It wasn’t that she wasn’t sure replies go through – it was that she wasn’t sure, it went to the right person!!

    I don’t know, Maybe you have some other ideas.

    But one thing is clear: Huma Abedin had sent an e-mail to Hillary Clinton’s ipad (it’s something that elicited a “reply”) and Hillary Clinton had at least attempted to send her a reply from that ipad.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 1, 2015 at 12:56 pm

      The emails that were just revealed are not from the committee. (from the committee we’ve had leaks that a lot of the emails she sent were requests to print out a newspaper article. So that may be why Huma Abedin sent it. Is this something Hillary wanted to read, or at least keep?)

      These 4 emails that were just released came in response to a 2013 AP Freedom of Information Request about her communications with other State Department officials about drones. The State Department had indicated that it wasn’t going to redo any of the old ones, but maybe they hadn’t responded to it yet, or maybe the AP resubmitted it.

      So that turned up an e-mail in which Huma Abedin had forwarded to her a newspaperr article with drones in the title at 9:16 am on a Sunday.

      Evidently, this one: (from one or another source)

      http://newsok.com/pakistan-troops-battle-taliban-for-us-drone-debris/article/feed/297611l

      Hillary replies at 9:28 am with something about buying benches or boxes or other containers (or boxes/baskets/containers to be on top of a bench and shelves or something)

      And Huma Abedin asks if she meant to send that to her.

      And then Hillary tells her, no.

Chapter 18 of U.S. Code, subsection 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Emphasis added.

Get the server. It’s evidence of a crime.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Archer. | April 1, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Destroying a public record is precisely what Hillary Clinton denies doing.

    Her lawyer, David Kendall, with long experience in all matters Clinton, says here, at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5:

    http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_03_27_Kendall_to_TG_re_Response_to_March_4_Subpoena.pdf

    …that the responsibility of determining what e-mails are and are not public records lies with the person who sent or received the email.

      Walker Evans in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 1, 2015 at 3:06 pm

      18 USC, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, paragraphs a & b are, as Archer noted, quite germane to this discussion. If she is guilty of failing to safeguard “public records” she is indeed barred from any future public office.

      Contrary to what Clitler’s lawyer would like us to believe, she did not have carte blanche to decide which emails were public record; she was constrained to make that determination based on regulations established by NARA. ANY email that discussed policies, procedures, or nearly any SoS official business falls into the category of “public records” which need to be maintained.

      Any even vaguely reasonable person – which very well may exclude her lawyer – will see her actions are ipso facto a violation of the provisions of the law Archer noted. Bring this to the attention of your federal representatives – forcefully – it’s time they start doing their jobs!

Worst possible scenario for Clinton (besides everyone thinking she’s a fraudulent, scummy crook and pathological liar) is that Clinton has become a laughing-stock.

If this were the 1500s, Clinton would be pilloried in the public square. If this were the 1600s, she’d be burned at the stake for being a witch. If this was the the 2100s, she’d be vaporized for being so annoying. Being this is the 2000s, we just need to dump her on the trash-heap of history, as the smelly, absurd contrivance she always was.

The IRS likes to raid and remove small business assets first and then ask questions later. In like due process-less fashion, how about an NSA/CIA mission that makes several raids on Hillary Inc and all her subsidiaries- Benghazi information gathering is all.

Hillary’s continuing obstruction of justice will go on until something ‘changes’. Her secret ‘stuff’ is still out there. She’s hoping it will somehow commit data suicide.

Sammy Finkelman | April 1, 2015 at 1:34 pm

The meaning of “IS” department:

If you read Clinton lawyer David Kendall’s letter carefully:

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_03_27_Kendall_to_TG_re_Response_to_March_4_Subpoena.pdf

You see he says that Hillary Clinton used only one e-mail address when corresponding with everyone, and that [email protected] did not exist during her tenure at the State Department, and that they they sent to the state Department “all e-mails from the [email protected] e-mail account that were related or potentially related to Secretary Clinton’s work as Secretary of State” but he does NOT say, that [email protected] was the only one she used during her entire tenure as Secretary of State.

So there is another (although the claim would be that from Date X to Date Y, something else was used)

He also claims her emails are now immune from subpoena pending a State Department review.

The letter from the state Department dated March 23, which granst her permission to retain copies, seems to be indicating she still has copies, and electronic ones at that, but obviously if her claims of having set her e-mail account to auto delete are to be believed, not on the original server, or at least not tied to the original e-mail account.

Sammy Finkelman | April 1, 2015 at 3:02 pm

The only comfortable with oen device claim is not a real problem for her – she had 4, but that’s in 2014, and it sounds at least like she was new to the ipad in 2011.

The real problem is the claim that she only used one, buit she was at least trying anotehr one in 2011.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend