In an interview with Andrea Mitchell, Hillary Clinton refused to apologize for her email mendacity.
Clinton responded by acknowledging that “it wasn’t the best choice,” and said that she “should have had two accounts.” But she also continued to defend the decision as “above board” and something that was “allowed by the State Department.”
Uh huh. She is sorry that everyone is “confused” :
CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I think that the facts are pretty clear, that we had a lot of hard work, hard choices to make in those four years … I think we really served our country well, and now, the State Department has everything that they could have, so, at the end of the day, I’m sorry that this has been so confusing for people and has raised a lot of questions.
Besides, they knew I was doing it:
“People in the government knew I was using a personal account,” Clinton said. “But it would have been better if I had two separate accounts to begin with, and I’m doing all I can now to be transparent about what I had on my work related emails. They will be coming out. I wish it was faster. I’m frustrated it’s taking a while, but there’s a process that needs to be followed.”
They knew? State allowed it? I’d like to know who knew she was using a private account and who approved it. That seems very reasonable, yet State spokesman Mark Toner absolutely refused to answer the question:
Toner was also pressed repeatedly on another question that has yet to be answered in the Clinton email saga: which State Department officials agreed to allow Clinton use her off-the-books email server?
Asked who okayed the arrangement, Toner said: “My unsatisfactory but necessary answer to that is, you know, again that’s not our role in this process to really answer that question publicly. There are reviews and investigations underway that will look at possibly some of these issues, it is for other entities to speak to.”
Excuse me? It’s not your role as spokesman to answer that question? Clinton said it was all “above board” and approved by State. What’s the problem?
Mitchell should have asked Clinton who knew and who approved Clinton’s abuse of the system but Mitchell is a partisan hack and she avoided putting any real pressure on her idol.
Clinton then offered up her usual deceit:
Clinton argued that she has since “been as transparent” as she could, requesting the release of 55,000 pages of emails, turning over her work-related emails and server for review and requesting the opportunity to testify before Congress.
But she really didn’t. It’s not widely understood that Clinton didn’t provide the emails. She’s only provided paper copies of her emails, printing out only the portions she chose to disclose. That’s big issue. A very big issue. It’s why Judicial Watch is suing for access to the metadata.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced it filed a lawsuit seeking access to two of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails in their original, native format (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-01414)). The native format contains metadata, which provides details such as server information and hidden email recipients.
In May 2015, the State Department posted to its website several emails alleged returned by Clinton to the State Department late last year. In July, Judicial Watch submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for email “as it was sent” for two of the emails – one by Clinton aide Huma Abedin on Sunday, August 21, 2011, from her [email protected] email address, and the other email “as it was received” by Jacob Sullivan on Saturday, July 7, 2012, at his [email protected] email address. Alternatively, if the State Department could not produce the emails in their native format, Judicial Watch requested that the agency produce records that would identify the information contained in the email headers.
The State Department did not respond to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, even though it acknowledged receiving it on July 9.
Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton IT guy who had no experience with national security, has informed us that he plans to plead the Fifth rather than answer questions. Bryan has a problem. When he was employed full time by State he was required to disclose any outside income. He kind of forgot to mention that the Clintons were paying him on the side. Pagliano’s lawyer refused comment.
That’s a problem.
But even after arriving at State in May 2009, Pagliano continued to be paid by the Clintons to maintain the server, which was in their Chappaqua, N.Y., home, according to the campaign official and another person familiar with the arrangement. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under investigation.
The private pay arrangement has not previously been reported. The State Department has declined to answer questions about whether the private system was widely known within the agency or officially approved.
Asked in early August about whether Pagliano had been paid privately to maintain the server, a State Department official said that the agency had “found no evidence that he ever informed the department that he had outside income.”
Funny how the self-professed “transparent” Clinton failed to mention this.
Are the facts still clear, Hillary?