Thread: The Benghazi Hearings

Did the WH & Jarrett "leak" on the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal??

"Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president," Klein said a source close to the White House told him. "They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal."

The source continued: "With Obama's approval, Valerie has been holding secret meetings with Martin O'Malley [the former Democratic governor of Maryland] and [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren. She's promised O'Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination."

The White House did not respond to the Times' queries about Jarrett.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/polit...-investigation

One of the responsibilities of public service is to be open and transparent to the people whom you serve. It appears this is not a code by which some wish to live — instead believing they are beholden to a different standard. However, at a time when lives have been lost, it does indeed make a difference.

As reported by Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...an-116472.html “Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.”

“Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request. Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.”

And so it goes, as with the emails of another government servant, Lois Lerner of the IRS. When in question, it seems official government correspondence just sort of vanishes.

Just this past weekend, while speaking in Washington state, I was asked if the truth regarding Benghazi would ever surface. Sadly, I responded I didn’t believe it would.

There is still a contingent of people who believe the deaths of four Americans and the false narrative created to cover the Islamic terror attack by Ansar al-Sharia warrants no inquiry. As well, the game of thrones surrounding the political aspirations of some are far more important.

What does this say for someone who seeks to be “Commander-in-Chief” of our U.S. military? How can our men and women in uniform trust and believe that their backs will be covered if we have a sentiment, an arrogance that is clearly not in keeping with a high standard of integrity?

Americans were abandoned to die, yet to some they are nothing more than just emails to be destroyed. A nation cannot survive this type of blatant disregard — or treachery.

As a government official you don’t get to decide what correspondence will be released and shared for the representatives of the American people to view. As well, that correspondence is not “supposed” to be stored on private servers in a private residence — only to be deleted at the convenience of the holder. Clinton’s lawyer’s statement that “Secretary Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased” are not words the American people should tolerate — and that should be a bipartisan position.

So where does this leave the ongoing search for truth in the matter of four Americans being left to die in Libya?

“Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton. “After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Gowdy said.”

“In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home. “There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the [email protected] account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”

And so the story goes in our new fundamentally transformed America, where the elitism of governance casts its long and ugly shadow. Where it seems there’s not am economic class system developing but instead a system of those who are perceived above reproach — and us serfs who are told to do as they say, not as they do. Move along, stop bothering us, we have others things to do.

That sentiment is demonstrated by Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, who said Clinton’s response “confirms” that the former secretary of state has provided all documents related to the Benghazi attacks to the committee. “This confirms what we all knew—that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi,” said Cummings (D-Md.). “It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton’s public testimony now.”

So no America, at least for those who care, we will never know the truth behind the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALS — Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods. After all, what difference at this point does it make?

Clearly it means little to those who seek power to rule and establish a different set of rules for themselves.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/03/the-tr...eleted-emails/

“In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home. “There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the [email protected] account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”

I know some IT people that can get stuff off that hard drive unless it has been thru the Mangler .... turn it over.

Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton wiped her server clean
By Lauren French
3/27/15 6:23 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.
Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.

Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.


Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton.

“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Gowdy said.

Clinton previously said she decided to delete the emails after her lawyers reviewed the server for work-related correspondence. She said the deletion of private emails occurred “at the end” of that review.

In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home.

“There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the [email protected] account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”

The broad subpoena from Gowdy included any emails relating to Libya, weapons located in the country, the Benghazi attacks and administration statements following the attacks on the compound.

Shortly after the New York Times reported on Clinton’s private email use, she requested that the State Department make public all documents from her time at the agency. The State Department has said it’s working though these documents – which include 55,000 pages – for review.

The agency has also said it will focus on vetting the 300 pages the Benghazi Committee has already received. Kendall said the State Department is “uniquely positioned” to respond to requests for additional documents, a sign from Clinton’s camp that they believe she has fully responded to any standing legal requests.

Kendall added, “Thus, there are no [email protected] e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized.”

The letter added that requests from a second email, [email protected], are not germane as that address was “not an address that existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure.”

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe gestures as he talks with members of the House and Senate adjournment committee at the Capitol in Richmond, Va., Friday, Feb. 27, 2015. The 2015 session of the Virginia General Assembly adjourned after agreement on an ethics bill. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, said Clinton’s response “confirms” that the former secretary of state has provided all documents related to the Benghazi attacks to the committee. “This confirms what we all knew—that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the Select Committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi,” said Cummings (D-Md.). “It is time for the Committee to stop this political charade and instead make these documents public and schedule Secretary Clinton’s public testimony now.”

The move all but ensures congressional Republicans’ focus on Clinton will intensify. The Benghazi panel has already said it will bring Clinton in to testify at least twice — once privately about her email use while at State and at another public hearing on the Obama administration’s reaction to Benghazi. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has also signaled plans to investigate Clinton’s use of private email.

Gowdy’s subpoenas came after it was reported that Clinton stored her emails on a private server and used a personal email address while at the State Department. Clinton has already made more than 900 pages of emails available to the committee but the panel has requested the entire swath of documents – a request Gowdy has repeatedly said is necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3VuxHRVq7

Clinton also used iPad for email; mixed personal, work chats
Hillary Clinton used multiple devices for emailing - despite saying she only used one device, Hillary Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state
By JACK GILLUM, Associated Press
1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The State Department released a total of four emails between Clinton and her top advisers as part of a Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2013 by the AP, which sought Clinton's correspondence with senior advisers over a four-year period relating to drone strikes overseas and U.S. surveillance programs.

While limited, the emails offer one of the first looks into Clinton's correspondence while secretary of state. The messages came from and were sent to her private email address, hosted on a server at her property in Chappaqua, New York, as opposed to a government-run email account.

They show that Clinton, on at least one occasion, accidentally mingled personal and work matters. In reply to a message sent in September 2011 by adviser Huma Abedin to Clinton's personal email account, which contained an AP story about a drone strike in Pakistan, Clinton mistakenly replied with questions that appear to be about decorations.

"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?"

Abedin replied, "Did u mean to send to me?" To which Clinton wrote, "No-sorry! Also, pls let me know if you got a reply from my ipad. I'm not sure replies go thru."

The other emails between Clinton and her advisers provided by the State Department contained a summary of a 2011 meeting between Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and senior Egyptian officials in Cairo. It was uncensored and did not appear to contain sensitive information. That email was forwarded to Clinton's private account from Abedin's government email address.

In another note, Clinton expressed apparent dismay at leaks of classified U.S. government information to the media. Referencing a CNN story, which described "loose lips" in the Obama administration, she asked two officials if she should comment on the matter as had Leon Panetta, the former Central Intelligence Agency director.

"I think this is both dishonorable and dangerous and want to find way to say it," she wrote.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said early Tuesday that the secretary used her iPad from time to time, primarily to read news clippings.

At the United Nations earlier this month, Clinton said she chose a personal account over a government one out of convenience, describing it as a way to carry a single device, rather than one for work emails and another for personal messages.

"Looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices," Clinton said. Her office that day released a statement saying she "wanted the simplicity of using one device."

Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, a year before Apple Inc. released the iPad. Clinton at that time could have potentially split her accounts, reverting to an official State.gov email account and BlackBerry for work and leaving her personal email on her iPad.

Clinton has said she exchanged about 60,000 emails in her four years in the Obama administration, about half of which were work-related. She said none contained classified information, and that her private email system did not suffer any security breaches.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email server gave Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination should she run as expected, complete control over access to her message archives.

Clinton said she deleted emails — some 30,000 in total — that she described as personal in nature, such as yoga routines, plans for her mother's funeral or her daughter's wedding. It's not clear how Clinton handled emails that mixed personal and official business, such as the exchange with Abedin.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the chairman of a House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, said Clinton wiped her email server "clean," permanently deleting all emails from it and has declined to relinquish her server to a third party for an independent review.

Clinton's attorney said she had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure and it would make no sense to turn over her server, since "no emails ... reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server."

The emails obtained by AP stem from several public-records requests filed with the State Department, starting in 2010. Most were unfulfilled until this week, when the State Department said it could find only four messages that met the search terms of one such request.

Earlier this month, AP sued the department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, including those provided by the department this week.

The FOIA requests and federal lawsuit sought materials related to Clinton's public and private calendars; correspondence involving aides likely to play important roles in her expected campaign for president; and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and controversial U.S. surveillance practices.

___

Read the email exchanges: http://apne.ws/1Cqba3R

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...id=ansnewsap11

"When the Benghazi sociopath testified before Trey Gowdy's hearing, she said she couldn't possibly distinguish between Ambassador Stevens' email from the million or so she received that year. That was both an ignorant lie and the very thing that would convict anyone else for negligent homicide.

If not for Hillary's willful act to keep her email secret and away from the office of Secretary of State, her office staff would have been able to catch Ambassador Stevens three pleas for increased security in Benghazi. But they couldn't because Hillary made sure no one read them. Hillary is negligent in Ambassador Stevens' murder is she not? She had to have deleted his voice mail too

Hillary will never, ever wordsmith her way out of what she did to abandon Ambassador Stevens. She denied America's ambassador to Libya the security he requested, not once but three times. This after the Chinese and British embassies were bombed and after that same annex was bombed the summer before."

Charlie B

Republicans Call For Criminal Charges Against Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for permanently removing emails from the private server she used while serving as secretary of state

http://www.newsiosity.com/articles/p...illary-clinton

The George W. Bush email scandal the media has conveniently forgotten

Back in 2007, the White House "lost" more than five million private emails. The story was barely covered
Eric Boehlert, Media Matters
Thursday, Mar 12, 2015 03:15 AM CDT
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_...otten_partner/

Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush’s sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.

As the Washington Post reported, “Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations.” But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday’s Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC’s This Week.)

By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton’s “email” or “emails” were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage.

Indeed, the commentary for the last week truly has been relentless, with the Beltway press barely pausing to catch its breath before unloading yet another round of “analysis,” most of which provides little insight but does allow journalists to vent about the Clintons.

What has become clear over the last eight days however is that the Clinton email story isn’t about lawbreaking. “Experts have said it doesn’t appear Clinton violated federal laws,” CNN conceded. “But that hasn’t stemmed the issue that has become more about bad optics and politics than any actual wrongdoing.” The National Law Journal agreed, noting that while the story has created a political furor, “any legal consequences are likely to prove negligible.”

Still, the scandal machine churns on determined to the treat the story as a political blockbuster, even though early polling indicates the kerfuffle will not damage Clinton’s standing.

Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close.

Instead, the millions of missing Bush White House emails were treated as a 24-hour or 48-hour story. It was a subject that was dutifully noted, and then the media pack quickly moved on.

How did the Washington Post and New York Times commentators deal with the Bush email scandal in the week following the confirmation of the missing messages? In his April 17, 2007 column, Post columnist Eugene Robinson hit the White House hard. But he was the only Post columnist to do so. On the editorial page, the Post cautioned that the story of millions of missing White House emails might not really be a “scandal.” Instead, it was possible, the Post suggested, that Rove and others simply received “sloppy guidance” regarding email protocol.

There’s been no such Post inclination to give Clinton any sort of benefit of the doubt regarding email use as the paper piles up endless attacks on her. Dana Milbank: “Clinton made a whopper of an error.” Ruth Marcus: “This has the distinct odor of hogwash.”

As for The New York Times, here’s the entirety of the newspaper’s commentary on the Bush White House email story in the week following the revelation, according to Nexis:

Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years’ worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.

Naturally we are going to fall back on the "Blame Bush" excuse.

What I don't understand is why they miss two simple points : one even if a prior Administration did this ... it is STILL WRONG. Pointing a finger and saying "They did it so many years ago" doesn't validate the current wrong doing.

In the matter of the prior Administration it concerned people getting fired... no one died. We were attacked on our Sovereign soil - our Ambassador murdered - protection denied prior to the events and aid refused while it went on. If the Secretary of State was unaware of these events - then what was she doing - not her job.

JMHO - JR

Washington, DC- The Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy sent a letter requesting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear before the Committee for a transcribed interview regarding her use of private email and a personal server for official State Department business. The letter reads:

Mr. David E. Kendall

Williams & Connolly LLP

725 12th Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20005



Dear Mr. Kendall:



On March 19, 2015, the Committee asked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to provide her personal email server to the Inspector General for the State Department to ensure the full record of her tenure as Secretary was preserved. This request allows for a neutral, detached and independent third-party review of the server to identify information responsive to this Committee’s subpoena. The Committee suggested the current Inspector General for the Department of State—nominated by President Obama and confirmed without a dissenting vote by the U.S. Senate—to conduct this review independently. The Committee was then and remains open to the designation of another neutral, detached, and independent arbiter to review Secretary Clinton’s server to ensure all relevant records have been preserved and produced to the Committee consistent with its subpoena.

Secretary Clinton’s refusal to allow the Inspector General to ensure the public record is complete is not only disappointing but portends to delay the ability of our Committee to complete its work as expeditiously as possible. We, therefore, urge the Secretary to reconsider her position and allow a neutral, detached, and independent arbiter ensure the public record is complete and all materials relevant to the Committee’s work have been provided to the Committee.

If the Secretary continues to reject the offer of a neutral review, the House of Representatives as a whole will need to consider its next steps. As you know the production of documents made to the Select Committee represents a very small portion of the total public record housed in the Secretary’s possession until recently. As such, other committees of Congress as well as the media and the public at large have equities in the Secretary’s public record.

Although I have made this abundantly clear, it bears repeating: our Committee has no interest in any emails related to the Secretary’s personal, private matters nor is our Committee seeking documents unrelated to Libya and Benghazi during the relevant time periods. The Committee is, however, committed to reviewing and considering every document related to the work the House of Representatives charged us with doing.

Toward that end and because of the Secretary’s unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State, this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records. The Committee is willing to schedule the interview at a time convenient for Secretary Clinton, but no later than May 1, 2015.

The Committee believes a transcribed interview would best protect Secretary Clinton’s privacy, the security of the information queried, and the public’s interest in ensuring this Committee has all information needed to accomplish the task set before it.

Once there is a reasonable assurance all documents in the Secretary’s care, custody and control related to what happened before, during, and after the attacks in Benghazi have been shared with the Committee, we will be in a position to schedule her appearance in a public hearing to constructively discuss these topics. We share the Secretary’s desire these two conversations take place as quickly and efficiently as possible, and are willing to expedite both working with your office, the Secretary’s schedule and our Democrat colleagues on the Committee. What the Committee cannot do is conclude its work without assurances the Committee has all relevant information necessary for us to discharge the duties required of us.

We continue to believe Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement with herself is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. 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. These questions relate to:
1.Her decision to bypass an official government email account;


2.Whether she affirmatively turned over any relevant records during the pendency of the Accountability Review Board investigation or at any time after Congress first began investigating the Benghazi attack until December 2014;


3.Her decision to retain those records upon separation from the Department of State;


4.The methodology by which these emails were subsequently searched for evidence of official records; and


5.Her decision to delete certain emails.

The Committee also reiterates pending the resolution of this matter the server and any associated information, data, backups, and equipment must be preserved wherever they reside and that any further deletion or destruction of data or information must cease. 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.

We look forward to working closely with you to schedule both Secretary Clinton’s private transcribed interview related to her email arrangement as well as her public appearance before the Committee.

Sincerely,

Trey Gowdy

Chairman

http://www.americasfreedomfighters.c...ns-everything/