LF: Judicial Watch: New Emails Show Hillary Clinton Contacts with Bryan Pagliano – Raise New Questions About Her Sworn Testimony

Title: Judicial Watch: New Emails Show Hillary Clinton Contacts with Bryan Pagliano – Raise New Questions About Her Sworn Testimony
Source: Judicial Watch
URL Source: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press- ... new-questions-sworn-testimony/
Published: Oct 19, 2016
Author: Judicial Watch
Post Date: 2016-10-19 16:49:50 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 217

Judicial Watch: New Emails Show Hillary Clinton Contacts with Bryan Pagliano – Raise New Questions About Her Sworn Testimony

Clinton’s October 13 Sworn Statement: She ‘Does not Recall’ Communicating with Pagliano about Emails

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents, which were uncovered by the FBI in its investigation of Clinton and her use of the clintonemail.com system. The emails reveal direct communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top IT specialist, Bryan Pagliano, about clintonemail.com management problems. Last week, Clinton claimed under oath to Judicial Watch that she “does not recall having communications” with Pagliano relating to the email system. Clinton’s emails to Pagliano, who installed and maintained the clintonemail.com computer system in the Clinton’s New York home, relate to email management problems with Clinton’s BlackBerry. The FBI recovered these new emails from those not turned over by Hillary Clinton. These new emails are government documents and not personal emails as Hillary Clinton claims in defending her decision to not turn over 30,000 emails sent or received by her as Secretary of State.

The new documents were among the nearly 15,000 Clinton emails discovered by the FBI, and obtained in response to an April 8, 2016, federal court order directing the Department of State to begin producing materials for Judicial Watch in response to a September 3, 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-01441)). The lawsuit was filed after State failed to comply with an August 5, 2015 FOIA request seeking information about Bryan Pagliano’s involvement with Clinton’s email system.

Several “Test” messages were sent between Pagliano, Clinton, and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jon Davidson on September 2, 2011. And on March 2012 Clinton writes to Pagliano, “Once again, I’m having BB [BlackBerry] trouble”:

From: H
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:45 AM
To: Justin Cooper, Bryan Pagliano [Cooper was a senior advisor to Bill Clinton]
Cc: Oscar Floras [manager of Clinton’s New York home]
Subject: Help!
Once again, I’m having BB trouble. I am not receiving emails although people are getting ones I send but I get their replies on my IP. I’ve taken out the battery and done what I know to do but with no luck yet any ideas?
***
From: H
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 8:54 AM
To: Justin Cooper
Cc: Bryan M. Pagliano, Oscar Flores
Subject: Re: Help!
Thanks, Justin. How does that happen. do I need to do anything?
***
From: Bryan Pagliano
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 10:32 AM
To: H
Cc: Justin Cooper, Oscar Flores
Subject: Re: Help!
Let me take a look at the server to see if it offers any insight. iPhone is not much different from iPad, however in both cases the security landscape is different from the blackberry.
-Bryan
***
From: H hdr22@clintonemail.com
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:44 AM
To: Justin Cooper
Cc: Bryan M. Pagliano, Oscar Flores
Subject: Re:
Thanks again. I’m back in business.

On October 13, 2016, Judicial Watch released Clinton’s responses given under oath to 25 questions posed by Judicial Watch as ordered by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in separate litigation. The final question reads:

Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.

Clinton’s response:

Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reasons set forth in General Objection No. 5. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 on the ground that the word “management” is vague. Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 25 insofar as it requests information related to alternate or replacement servers used after Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any e-mails in her clintonemail.com email account. [Emphasis added]

Clinton also claimed she “does not recall” 20 times in her responses given under oath.

In addition, Judicial Watch deposed Bryan Pagliano in June. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself more than 125 times, including:

Q. During your tenure at the State Department, did you communicate with Secretary Clinton by e-mail?
A. On the advice of counsel, I will decline to answer your question in reliance on my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“These new emails leave little doubt that Hillary Clinton was less than forthright and misled the public when she wrote, under oath, that she ‘couldn’t recall’ communicating with Bryan Pagliano about her email scheme,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Clinton and her agents deleted these emails time and time again. And these smoking gun emails would never have seen the light of day but for Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuits.”

###