Image 01 Image 03

Reports: Hillary did NOT turn over all work-related emails

Reports: Hillary did NOT turn over all work-related emails

Separately, State Department finds additional Benghazi-related emails.

Remember when Hillary Clinton submitted a Declaration under penalty of perjury in a Judicial Watch FOIA case that all work related emails had been turned over to the State Department?

And I asked the question Did Hillary just walk into a perjury trap over her emails?

And remember when Hillary repeatedly told us that all work-related emails had been turned over?

And remember when Hillary gave differing accounts of who decided what was personal?

Well, read this from AP, Officials: More work emails from Clinton’s private account:

The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.

The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military’s U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.

This appears to be in addition to Benghazi emails the State Department had but didn’t turn over (a separate issue).

So how will Team Hillary respond?

Blame others. The State Department. Her lawyers. Her aides. Anyone but herself.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That affidavit needs to be turned into a campaign commercial, in the unlikely event that Hillary is the Democratic nominee for President.

    I must be missing something, and it would not be the first time, but:
    In the subject sworn declaration, Hillary states:
    (1) that she directed all of the subject emails to be turned over. Maybe she did. How do we know she did not give that direction to someone?
    (2) “on information and belief” this has been done. This is not a statement of Hillary’s personal knowledge that all of the subject emails had been turned over. Rather, it is a sworn statement that someone informed her that all of the subject emails had been turned over, and that she believed that person.
    How do we know that there are not a couple of Clinton loyalists out there who will support her two statements?

      Arminius in reply to Rick. | September 25, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      Yes, I noticed that as well.

      I wonder how voters will react to someone who deliberately sets up her underlings to take the fall for her yet wants to be President.

      Another aspect of this is that the FBI is investigating Clinton’s assistants to see if they broke the law by sending her classified information. Yet, if they did Hillary Clinton was the architect of their crimes. Hillary Clinton is the only one responsible for making it impossible to send her that information any other way.

      I suppose this is what Hillary Clinton meant when she said she had her own server set up for convenience. It’s far more convenient for other people to go to prison for her crimes than it would be to pay for those crimes herself.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Arminius. | September 26, 2015 at 1:36 am

        Hillary is on the record (in an e-mail) instructing an aide to ignore the classification of information and to send it to her anyway. She not only knew she was receiving classified information via her private e-mail, she demanded that it be sent. She simply did not care. If she knew that she was receiving classified information, then she knew that she was storing it on an unsecured server, and that she further retained control of that information after leaving office (a federal offense all by itself).

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Arminius. | September 26, 2015 at 9:17 pm

        I wonder how voters will react to someone who deliberately sets up her underlings to take the fall for her yet wants to be President.

        No, there’s both in the clear (as far the e-mail submission is concerned)

        She authorized the release of what they decided were work related e-mails(in negotiations with the State Department using amethod for selecting e-mails that was worked out with the State Department.

        In her sworn statement, she’s just careful not to say that actually included all work-related e-mails.

        Note: If that didn’t include everything, nobody is responsible for ignoring he subpoena, which actually didn’t apply to her yet, since the Gowdy Committee didn’t know she had sole possession of any e-mails, and the subpoena was to the State Department.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | September 26, 2015 at 9:24 pm

          By the way, Bill Clinton was careful to arrange things so that Janet Reno did not have any responsibility for the Waco fire (or having the siege end that day) and neiether did the FBI. Everybody was protected.

          Her orders, which she signed when people who might object were out for the weekend, were to reduce the perimeter that the Davididnas were confined to, but IF they were fired on they either fire back or use tear gas.

          The FBI claimed (it was lying) taht the Davidians fired at them on April 19, 1993) and look, they didn’t even take advantage of the permisison to fire back (which is not true – they did fire (strategically, to keep the Davidians from leaving) and only injected tear gas (CS tear gas can cause a fire when it is at the proper dilution but not more or less, so the fire actually did break out almost simulatenously in diffrent places)

          Then Clinton had the compund demolished before any impartial fire experts could take a look at it, using only fire experts the government selected. (I suspect they were vetted for sihonesty by Ed Rollins)

      Mercyneal in reply to Rick. | September 25, 2015 at 7:56 pm

      They were HER emails. She was the boss and she had to have known what they were turning over.

      More importantly: WHO is leaking all of this information?

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Mercyneal. | September 29, 2015 at 8:59 pm

        She claims she didn’t want to look over theor shoulder.

        What atually happened is that she and her lawyers reached an agreement with the State Department for an algorithm determining what was work-related. Which, I think, was mostly e-mail to and from e-mail addresses. Plus some extra search terms, probably reverse-engineered.

        And the email was searhed for Benghazi and Libya, and some other terms, which was the subject of the subpeona to the State De[artment by the Trey Gowdy committee, which didn ‘t know at that point about the fact Hillary Clintonn had never used official e-mail systems.

        Only the body of e-mails was searchd, not any attachments.

      Valerie in reply to Rick. | September 25, 2015 at 8:27 pm

      Her first statement in this affidavit is that she does not know what would be responsive to the discovery request.

      That is unacceptable in a lawsuit in the US.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Valerie. | September 26, 2015 at 9:30 pm

        Her answer is way of avoiding making the kind of sworn statement that the judge wanted.

        It sort of seems to say something that it does not.

        She prefaces it by saying she does not really understand what the judge is asking.

Obama is enjoying turning Hillary slowly on the spit while he flaunts holding the power to release more damaging documents or criminally charge her. It’s not clear to me at this point though if his dislike for her or his interest in Clinton influence peddling will win out.

Maybe Obama is going to wait until just before democrat convention to indict or put final nail in coffin. Then panic in democrat party about what to do may allow Obama to hand pick nominee.

“unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government”


Really, AP?

How about:

“unprecedented usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“likely illegal usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“highly insecure usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“surreptitious usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“opaque usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“unmonitored usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“unauthorized usage of a private email account and server while in government”

“unapproved usage of a private email account and server while in government”

Anyone else find it interesting that Her Eminence signs her name “HR Clinton?” As if she’s too damn busy and important with the business of state (and, self-enriching Clinton Brand(TM) monetizing and prostituting to write out “Hillary R. Clinton” or “Hillary Rodham Clinton?”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to guyjones. | September 25, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    I sign my name the same way and I’m neither busy nor important, so no, I’m guessing most won’t be interested.

      Well, good for you, Henry. You could have simply left it at “I sign my name the same way, I don’t see any significance in that,” but, for some mystifying reason, you felt the exceedingly infantile need to add a pointless, snarky aside afterwards. Do grow up.

VRWC! They’re FORGERIES I tells ya! Forgeries!

Or, you know, Busted…

What a trend-setter! She’s joined Bill as a perjurer and she hasn’t even been sworn into office yet!

The Benghazi emails were in State’s possession and have been the entire time they have been under subpoena from the Gowdy Committee. That is on lying John Kerry, who promised full and prompt cooperation during his confirmation hearings.

The rest is on Hillary, but she did turn over those.

Gee, wouldn’t it be nice to have all those – many more are still at State, not just Hillary’s, either – before she testifies?

    DaveGinOly in reply to Estragon. | September 26, 2015 at 1:56 am

    It’s not as if the Benghazi e-mails are a discrete “thing” that can be transferred from the exclusive possession of one person to another. Kerry/State would almost certainly have received copies of Hillary’s B-mails (see what I’ve done there?), and Hillary would have remained in possession of her “originals.” I’m not even sure moving a single e-mail is possible. Even if the originals were moved or forwarded, then deleted, they still may be recoverable if the hard drive sectors they occupied were not subsequently written over (intentionally or during the normal course of use of the server, and the server may have been out of commission by the time State got those e-mails, I’m not sure).

    My point is that “moving” e-mails so that they would remain in the exclusive possession of a single person/office would be a very unusual thing to do. Just because Kerry/State has possession of the B-mails doesn’t mean that Hillary no longer has them herself or that they weren’t still on the server after State got its copies.

“I think that the reports that you (Hillary) provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”

This woman is a congenital liar, wholly incapable of telling the truth for even the most unimportant factual response. Bill, on the other hand, was a congenial liar, who consistently told his non-truths with that lovable hillbilly smile of his.