Image 01 Image 03

Clinton Showed Concern Over Treatment of Records at State Dept.

Clinton Showed Concern Over Treatment of Records at State Dept.

Did she or didn’t she know the risks?

Judicial watch received more emails from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one that showed concern about how the State Department treated her records.

She wrote on March 22, 2009, to Huma Abedin and Lauren Jiloty, her former special assistant:

I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?

I am sending out material the way I did w Lauren in the Senate, but I don’t know what’s happening w it all. For instance, I’ve sent a few things to Cheryl but she says she hasn’t read them. Does Claire manage this or does it all go to Joe? Are there personal files as well as official ones set up? If I don’t write anything on paper – as I mostly don’t – Lauren knew how to file it all in the Senate. I’m sending out a mix which sometimes Claire and other times Lauren picks up from the out box. What happens then is a mystery to me!

Abedin told Clinton they’ve discussed the issue before and would explain in person again.

But wait! In March 2015, Clinton addressed the email controversy at the UN. What did she say? At the 2:16 mark….

Clinton says:

“The vast majority of my emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”

Huh. Interesting. So she did know! Or didn’t she? At the press conference she admitted she should have just used two devices. But then again, it’s pretty easy handling more than one email address on one device. Excuses, excuses.

The government also handed over emails about political donations from Judith Heumann. They appointed her State Department Special Advisor on Disability Rights the following year. Other emails included exchanges between Clinton Foundation advisors and Clinton’s staff “about the Middle East and Haiti ‘donors’ conference.”

They also got one email with the subject line Kharxzai, but the government black out the content.

Last week, Judicial Watch received emails that showed Clinton’s email server caused the State Department to disable security features on their end.

One employee told the team to disable the anti-spam feature, which would make the servers vulnerable to viruses and phishing emails. State Department official Thomas Lawrence admitted the department viewed the solution “as a Band-Aid” and they feared the solution “is not 100% fully effective.”

As John Sexton at Hot Air pointed out, the State Department’s system blocked Clinton’s emails because it viewed her “private server as a security threat.”

A few weeks later, an IT employee shut down her server since he thought “someone was trying to hack us.” The hackers did not succeed, but the professional wanted to take precautions. At the time, Clinton could not receive emails on her BlackBerry since she connected the device to her private server.

Continuous problems caused her staff to encourage Clinton to use her government email. But the Director of S/ES-IRM, the portion of the department that coordinates work between bureaus, reminded Clinton’s team that if she uses the department email “that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


you left out the part that the e-mails in question were ones Shrillery deleted as being “personal”, which they obviously are not.

why isn’t she already in prison?

Why isn’t this vile venal witch in prison already??

The only ‘risk’ Hillary cared about was the risk that people were going to realize 1) that she didn’t do a single productive thing as Secretary of State, and 2) that her email covered her illegal acceptance of money for favors.

The State Department had to explicitly disable security protocols to keep it from filtering out her emails, leaving them more vulnerable to hacks. Not to mention the laughable joke of security that her server itself contained.

“I am sending out material the way I did w Lauren in the Senate, but I don’t know what’s happening w it all.”

Is she really this stupid? It sounds to me like she doesn’t know the difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch. If you could tell the difference, why would you as Secretary of State say you’re doing things just like you did in the Senate? FOIA and the FRA apply to executive branch agencies, not to Congressmen.

Don’t get me wrong. Hillary belongs in prison for her crimes. She’s malicious, evil, mendacious, greedy, all that. But I think she’s also stupid. Abedin, I think, was being kind to her boss when she said Clinton is “sometimes confused.” I really don’t think she’s all that bright.

There are so many times when our “ruling elite betters” say the most moronic things and I wonder, “Are you that stupid or do you think we are?” Like with all that laughably inept attempted tu quoque BS Clinton and her minions tried to use to defend her email practices.

First of all, the appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy. Second, they couldn’t come up with any actual hypocrisy. How dumb do you have to be to fail at illogic?

For instance, they tried to accuse Congressmen investigating her email server of hypocrisy because they use unclassified private email accounts too. Didn’t it dawn on them that Congressmen have something called “constituents,” who don’t have .gov email accounts? You can go to the Congressional website and find your Congressman’s email. And often they’ll have a .gmail or such account listed on their business cards. So the people who live and vote in their districts can contact them.

Which is why they aren’t subject to the same set of laws as the Secretary of State.

Or look at Jeb Bush; he had his own private server, he did it, too! And since when is a governor of a state subject to the Federal Records Act or the federal Freedom Of Information Act?

State governors and state official aren’t subject to the same set of laws as the heads of federal executive branch departments such as the Secretary of State.

I could go on, but I won’t. I’m coming down solidly on the side they really are that stupid.

Again, don’t misunderstand, Huma Abedin belongs in prison, too (unless she cuts a deal and turns on her boss). And she never should have had a security clearance given her own ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi government (which needs to be investigated and depending on what turns up I’m back on the side of “belongs in prison”).

She comes across as a far more sympathetic character. She seems to have the patience of a saint as she deals with Hillary Clinton as Clinton is confounded by technology such as a fax machine or a Blackberry, like a Neanderthal confronting fire for the first time, and shouting out for help. And Abedin’s response is as in the above; they’ve discussed it or she’s shown Clinton how to do it before but they can go over it again.

But I swear Hillary Clinton couldn’t pour water out of a boot even if you printed the instructions on the sole.

    Ragspierre in reply to Arminius. | June 28, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    All that is ESPECIALLY true as she had very direct experience with the record-keeping and archival requirements of EXECUTIVE offices at both state and Federal levels.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Arminius. | June 29, 2016 at 2:11 am

    Also, I would also submit that Senators and Governors do not routinely handle TS-SCI or SAP traffic across their e-mail servers.

“Clinton Showed Concern Over Treatment of Records at State Dept.”

And in other news:

“Clinton Showed Absolutely No Concern Over Treatment of Ambassadors, Foreign Service Officers While at State Dept.”

No one is asking the question of why Hillary was even interested in having personal communications on her government account. In all my years as a government contractor, we were told it was forbidden of using a government computer for personal business and doing so was a terminating offense. Using a classified government computer for personal business was never ever asked for it was patently unthinkable and in suing a classified computer as such would result in immediate termination or worse.
The mere asking of how her personal e-mails would be treated on her classified system should have set off alarm bells everywhere. Just because she is Hilary does not mean the rules should be different for her. Despite all of this, the Left is acting as though having 30,000 “personal” e-mails on an account where there are 35,000 official e-mails is something akin to normal. Why are we believing this absurd line of thinking?