Former State Official Testifies He Warned State Department Officials about
Clinton Email Issues; Concerned about Interference on Classified Clinton
Benghazi Email Documents


JULY 03, 2019

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that John Hackett, the
former Director for Information Programs and Services (IPS), which handles
records management at the State Department, testified
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hackett-depositio
n-01242/>  under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton’s staff had “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s
“personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. The
full deposition transcript is available here
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hackett-depositio
n-01242/> .

John Hackett, as part of a series of court-ordered depositions
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-anno
unces-depositions-of-senior-obama-era-officials-and-former-hillary-clinton-a
ides/>  and questions under oath of senior Obama-era State Department
officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, also revealed that he believed there
was interference with the formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) review
process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.

Hackett served first as deputy director then as director for Information
Programs and Services, which handles the FOIA request program and the
retirement of and declassification of documents at the State Department. He
was at the department from April 2013 to March 2016.

In March 2015, Clinton told reporters
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secret
ary-state/story?id=42389308>  that she and her staff had deleted more than
30,000 emails “because they were personal and private about matters that I
believed were within the scope of my personal privacy.” ABC News reported:
“However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than
17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the
State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said.”

(Heather Samuelson, the Clinton lawyer who deleted the Clinton emails,
separately testified
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-just
ice-department-granted-immunity-to-hillary-clintons-lawyer-who-destroyed-330
00-emails/>  to Judicial Watch that she received immunity from the Justice
Department.)

Hackett answered during the deposition that he recalled a conversation that
he had when he was at the State Department about requesting rules or
parameters from Secretary Clinton or her attorneys that they used to
segregate her personal and official work emails.

Hackett:  I recall it wasn’t much of a conversation. I — I was — I mean, I
have to say, it was emphatic to the Under Secretary of Management — and I
didn’t speak in tones like that very often to him — you know, that we needed
these — you know, the guidelines.

Judicial Watch: And when you said, the Under Secretary, are you referring to
Patrick Kennedy [then-Under Secretary of State for Management]?

Hackett: Yes.

Hackett: I think I might have raised it to Rich Visek, the Acting Office of
Legal Advisor, or Peggy — or Margaret Grafeld [an executive-level State
Department FOIA official] raised it to Rich, as well.

Judicial Watch: Why did you feel so strongly that this was necessary, that
they provide this information?

Hackett: Well, we heard that there were 50,000 or 60,000 emails, and that
they had – “they” being the Secretary’s team — had culled out 30,000 of
these. And which is — so we wanted to know what criteria they used. The
standard from the National Archives is very strict. If there was — if there
were mixed records, that would be considered a federal record. If it was
mixed personal and mentioned a discussion, that would be — under the narrow
National Archives rules, it would be considered a federal record.

Judicial Watch: And do you know if the emails that were returned by
Secretary Clinton and her attorneys, if they followed that guideline to
include an email that would include mixed information, personal and
official?

Hackett: I don’t know.

Judicial Watch: Was a request ever made by Patrick Kennedy or anybody else
who you raised this to?

Hackett: Ambassador Kennedy told me he would ask for the — the guidelines.

Judicial Watch: Do you know if the guidelines were ever provided to Patrick
Kennedy?

Hackett: Not during my tenure at the State Department.

In August 2014 the State Department sent some documents to the Benghazi
Select Committee that included a small number of Clinton emails. Hackett was
alerted about this production. Hackett was asked if the State Department
attorney who gave him the heads up said why he was providing the
information. Hackett answered: “I think only because he knew that there was
going to be publicity involved relating to this.”

Hackett was also asked by Judicial Watch about his concerns over 296 of
Secretary Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails that were made available to
Congress. Hackett testified that he had concerns regarding Catherine Duval
<https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/double-trouble-irs-lawyer-now-heads-
clinton-email-production-119606> , an attorney who worked for the Office of
Legislative affairs (and who was also involved in the Obama-era IRS
scandal):

Judicial Watch: And what was — what was your concern there, if you can
elaborate?

Hackett: The concern was, in the 296 that there were other agencies’
equities in those documents, you know, potentially classified information.
But any release decisions — and doing a FOIA review, we would normally make
a referral back to that home agency. And Ms. Duval seemed to imply that she
had already done that kind of coordination. But when we asked who she had
coordinated with, they were people not familiar in our regular FOIA process.

Judicial Watch: And that’s people, when you — the people you are referring
to, that’s — is it within just one agency, or is that dispersed through
different agencies?

Hackett: It would be different agencies.

Hackett: Again, I mean, we were familiar with the — our — our parallel
shops, you know, in other agencies, similar to IPS; we knew all the players
there, the other Directors of the office. And, so, we contacted them, and
they have not received any referrals from her. So we wondered who she was
working with.

Judicial Watch also asked Hackett if, as he had previously stated, he
“believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process” in
2014? Hackett said he believed “that some bureaus were convinced, or — and
analysts were convinced, once it was explained to them, to redact something
but use a B5 exemption [which applies to deliberative process and allows
government officials to discuss policy without the discussions being made
public, or attorney client privilege] versus a B1 [national security]
exemption.”

When Judicial Watch asked if he thought that was appropriate, Hackett
responded “No, I didn’t,” and said he voiced that concern to his boss,
Grafeld.

Hackett testified that his initial concern over Secretary Clinton’s email
use arose in June 2013 when he said he viewed a photograph on the WTOP
website of Clinton “sitting on a plane with a BlackBerry. “And that got me
thinking that, well, what — what was that BlackBerry? Was it a government
BlackBerry? And if so, where were the emails relating to that BlackBerry?”
Hackett said.

Hackett testified he went to then-IPS Director Sheryl Walter “after seeing
that photograph and suggested that we had to be careful about what sort of
responses we made relating to Hillary Clinton’s emails, when it — if there
was a No Record Located response that was being given out. In fact, I
advised Sheryl that we should stop giving No Record Located responses until
we come to — kind of come, you know — find out what that BlackBerry meant,
come to ground about what was known about the former Secretary’s emailing
habits.”

Asked how Walter responded, Hackett said “My recollection is, she agreed
with me.”

“The other thing that we did, or I did at that time, was, we wanted to find
out what this BlackBerry meant,” Hackett testified. “So we tasked — my
recollection is, we verbally tasked Tasha Thian, the department’s Records
Manager at that time, to look into the BlackBerry. And I believe Tasha
contacted Clarence Finney in the Secretary’s office to ask him what he knew
about the former Secretary’s emailing habits.”

Asked what Thian found out, Hackett responded: “I don’t recall exactly what
she found out, but she didn’t find out much. Tasha also contacted the part
of the State Department that’s part of the intelligence community, and
Intelligence and Research Bureau, to ask to see if there were any classified
emails on — in the classified systems that the Secretary might have
produced.  And I do recall that I think Tasha came back with the answer that
they did not have any.”

Hackett went on to say that “There was a lot of confusion about exactly what
that BlackBerry, you know, meant at that time. you had a concern as to how
the department was responding to FOIA requests that related to Secretary
Clinton’s emails after you saw the photograph of the Secretary holding a
BlackBerry. … My recollection is — and I had only been there two months —
that someone had told me that, — and I can’t remember — that she did not
have an email account, a government email account. So there was obviously a
contradiction here when, you know, there’s that photograph. So we were just
trying to find out what was the ground truth. So that’s why I had a concern
about issuing responses that said no records had been located.”

Hackett also said he knew of other employees in the State Department who
were using their personal email accounts for government business and that
“Some were senior officials, too.”

Asked who the senior officials were, Hackett responded: “I can’t remember
the time frame, but the IG did a couple of studies, reviews. I think the
Ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy, was cited as using her personal email
account. That’s one that comes to my mind.”

Hackett said: “We knew that some employees at times had a personal email
address for Hillary Clinton, and that they might forward something to her at
times. That’s the only thing that we knew. At that time I did not know who
those employees were. I mean, the — the gist of that email I remember was
one person saying to the other person, don’t use that — remember, you’re not
supposed to use that email. But I don’t remember who those people were. I
think one of them might have been in Public Affairs.”

“This disturbing testimony points to an Obama administration conspiracy to
hide and destroy Hillary Clinton emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton. “Even worse, the testimony suggests Clinton’s Benghazi emails were
under-classified in order to protect Hillary Clinton (and mislead Congress).
Attorney General Barr needs to prioritize reopening the Clinton email
investigation.”

On December 6, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/JW-v.-State-Dept.-1
4-1242-Lamberth-ruling-1.pdf>  Obama administration senior State Department
officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written
questions under oath. The court ruled
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-judge-opens
-discovery-into-clinton-email-usage/>  that the Clinton email system was
“one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” Judicial
Watch’s discovery is centered upon whether Clinton intentionally attempted
to evade the Freedom of Information Act by using a non-government email
system and whether the State Department acted in bad faith in processing
Judicial Watch’s FOIA request for communications from Clinton’s office.

The court-ordered discovery comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-anno
unces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-benghazi-atta
ck/>  filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May
13, 2014 FOIA request (
<http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/09-09-14-JW-v-State
-01242-Benghazi-Rice.pdf> Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No.
1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the
White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the
September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to
talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by
the White House or any federal agency.

Judicial Watch previously released:

*       The deposition transcript
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-just
ice-department-granted-immunity-to-hillary-clintons-lawyer-who-destroyed-330
00-emails/>  of Heather Samuelson, former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s White House Liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s
personal lawyer, who admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by
the U.S. Department of Justice in June 2016.

*       The deposition transcript
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-rele
ases-testimony-of-clinton-email-administrator-clinton-lawyer-cheryl-mills-co
mmunicated-with-him-a-week-prior-to-testimony/>  of Justin Cooper, former
aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who
registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that
Hillary Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State.

*       Interrogatory responses
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-
admits-hillary-clinton-emails-found-in-obama-white-house/>  of E.W. (Bill)
Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, in
which he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama
White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.

*       The deposition transcript
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/102119/>  of Jacob
“Jake” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff
when she was secretary of state, in which he in which he admits that both he
and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct
official State Department business.

*       The deposition transcript
<https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-form
er-asst-sec-of-state-for-diplomatic-security-testifies-under-oath-that-he-wa
rned-hillary-clinton-twice-about-unsecure-blackberrys-and-personal-emails/>
of Eric Boswell, former Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security
during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, in which he reveals
that Hillary Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerrys and
personal emails to transmit classified material.

EM         -> { Trump for 2020 }

On the 49th Parallel          

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko" 

 

_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
Ugandanet@kym.net
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet

UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to