August 8, 2015: Clinton writes under oath that she has provided the State Department all of her work-related emails that were on her personal email account she used while secretary of state.

Her short statement includes this sentence: “I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”

150808HillaryOath

A sample of the document Clinton signed on August 8, 2015. (Credit: Politico)

That statement is a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch against the State Department. Additionally, Clinton mentions in her statement that her top aide Huma Abedin also had an email account on her clintonemail.com server that “was used at times for government business,” but another top aide, Cheryl Mills, did not. (The New York Times, 8/10/2015) (Politico, 8/8/2015)

One month later, some more of Clinton’s work emails from her time as secretary of state will be discovered by the Defense Department. (The New York Times, 9/25/2015)

September 1, 2015: The State Department wants to consolidate the lawsuits about Clinton’s emails.

The department files a motion in court to do this to the large number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits that have arisen due to Clinton’s email scandal. There are at least three dozen lawsuits pending, before 17 different judges. (Politico, 9/1/2015) (The Wall Street Journal, 10/8/2015)

September 8, 2015: Secretary of State John Kerry appoints State Department “email czar.”

Janice Jacobs (Credit: CSpan)

The official job title created for Janice Jacobs will be Transparency Coordinator. The position is needed due to the growing number of document requests and lawsuits related to Clinton’s email scandal. The Department has been criticized for responding to document requests slowly or not at all, and for not permanently archiving more documents. CNN reports, “Privately, aides say [Kerry] has been annoyed at the distraction the controversy has caused for his department, which has at times overshadowed his diplomatic efforts.” (CNN, 9/8/2015

It will later be reported that the State Department has started automatically preserving the emails of Kerry and his senior aides. (The Washington Post, 11/9/2015)

Jacobs donated $2,7000 to Clinton’s presidential campaign in July 2015, the maximum allowable by law. (CNN, 9/9/2015)

September 27, 2015: Clinton denies she was trying to hide her email from investigators and the public.

Carrie Johnson (Credit: Doby Photography / NPR)

Carrie Johnson (Credit: Doby Photography / NPR)

Journalist Chuck Todd asks Clinton, “Republicans have been coming after you for years. You might have been running for president in the future. And you wanted to make it a little more difficult for congressional investigators to subpoena your government emails and a little more difficult for Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests. Is that it, fair theory or no?”

Clinton replies, “It’s totally ridiculous. That never crossed my mind.”

NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson later comments, “[T]here’s a reason she might have decided to answer that way. […] Clinton is talking to two audiences here —voters and investigators. And when it comes to avoiding subpoenas and taking steps to avoid subpoenas, lawyers will tell you there’s an important law Congress passed in 2002 after the Enron scandal. That law makes it a crime to get rid of documents in anticipation of an investigation by the Justice Department or by Congress—a crime called obstruction of justice.” (National Public Radio, 9/30/2015)

September 27, 2015: Clinton alleges it is “totally ridiculous” she used a private server to hide her emails from later public scrutiny.

Clinton is asked if she used her private email server at least in part to avoid scrutiny from future Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or Congressional subpoenas. She responds, “It’s totally ridiculous. That never crossed my mind.” She calls the suggestion “another conspiracy theory.” She says she assumed her emails would be available because she mostly was emailing to other officials who were using government email addresses. (The Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2015) (The Washington Post, 9/27/2015)

However, in 2000, she made a private comment about possibly using email that was recorded on video: “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? […] Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?” (ABC News, 3/6/2015)

October 7, 2015: A judge will not order an independent review of which Clinton emails are personal or work-related.

US District Court Judge Reggie Walton says that he does not believe he has the authority to order such a review. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking all of her work emails, and they want to know if there in fact are some work emails in the ones Clinton decided were personal. The issue presumes that she still has copies of the over 31,000 emails she had deleted off her private server.

Walton says, “I would order the State Department make the request of her to produce specifically any State Department-related information in her emails. I can’t in my view order that the State Department do any more than that.” Another judge has already ordered the public release of all the emails that Clinton decided were work-related. (Politico, 10/7/2015)

October 8, 2015: A judge wants to coordinate the lawsuits about Clinton’s emails.

Judge Richard W. Roberts (Credit: The Council on Legal Education Opportunity)

Judge Richard W. Roberts (Credit: The Council on Legal Education Opportunity)

Chief US District Judge Richard W. Roberts writes in a court order that the many legal cases about Clinton’s emails do not meet the usual criteria for consolidation but: “The judges who have been randomly assigned to these cases have been and continue to be committed to informal coordination so as to avoid unnecessary inefficiencies and confusion, and the parties are also urged to meet and confer to assist in coordination.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/8/2015)

October 13, 2015: Sanders says he’s sick of hearing about Clinton’s “damn emails.”

Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton shake hands moments after his "damn emails" comment during the first Democratic primary debate. (Credit: Reuters)

Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton shake hands moments after his “damn emails” comment during the first Democratic primary debate. (Credit: Reuters)

In the first Democratic primary debate, Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, addresses Clinton’s email scandal. “Let me say this. Let me say something that may not be great politics. But I think the secretary is right. And that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!”

Clinton responds, “Thank you. Me too. Me too.” Then the two of them shake hands.

According to the Los Angeles Times: “The crowd went wild. So did the Internet.” (The Los Angeles Times, 10/13/2015

Sanders will continue to avoid criticizing Clinton about her emails in the months that follow. Some of Sanders’ allies are disappointed that he doesn’t frequently attack Clinton on the issue. Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D), a Clinton supporter, will later say, “The email story is not about emails. It is about wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using FOIA”—the Freedom of Information Act—“to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.” (The New York Times, 4/3/2016)

January 7, 2016: The State Department’s internal watchdog slams the department’s FOIA process.

The State Department’s inspector general Steve Linick issues a report claiming that the department “repeatedly provided inadequate and inaccurate responses to Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests involving top agency officials, including a misleading answer to a request three years ago seeking information on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email use.”

Politico states the new report also points to “a series of failures in the procedures the office of the secretary used to respond to public records requests, including a lack of written policies and training, as well as inconsistent oversight by senior personnel.”

According to the report, “These procedural weaknesses, coupled with the lack of oversight by leadership and failure to routinely search emails, appear to contribute to inaccurate and incomplete responses.”

CREW's Logo (Credit: CREW)

CREW’s Logo (Credit: CREW)

One important flawed department response was a letter sent to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in May 2013 after the organization asked for details on email accounts used by Clinton. State’s response to CREW was, “no records responsive to your request were located.” The report says the inspector general’s office “found evidence that [Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills] was informed of the request at the time it was received and subsequently tasked staff to follow up.” However, according to the report, none of those officials appear to have reviewed the results of the search done in the department’s files, and there was “no evidence” that those staffers who did the search and responded to CREW knew about Clinton’s private email setup.  CREW followed up last year by saying it never received any final response to its FOIA request.

The AP Logo (Credit: The Associated Press)

The AP Logo (Credit: The Associated Press)

Other flaws pointed out by the inspector general’s report include extreme delays in other cases, such as an Associated Press FOIA request for Clinton’s schedules that was pending without substantive response for five years.

Politico also filed a FOIA request for legal and ethics reviews of former President Bill Clinton’s paid speeches. That request was pending for four years before the department began producing records.

The Gawker Logo (Credit: Gawker Media)

Another failed response involved a Gawker request for emails that former Clinton adviser Philippe Reines exchanged with 34 news organizations. Politico reports “that request initially received a “no records” response from [the] State [Department], even though State has now found 81,000 potentially responsive emails in its official files. At a court hearing last month, a government lawyer would not concede that the no-records response was inadequate.” (Politico, 1/7/2016)

 

February 23, 2016: A federal judge asks about failure to turn over Clinton records: “How in the world could this happen?”

Judge Emmet Sullivan (Credit: public domain)

Judge Emmet Sullivan (Credit: public domain)

US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, presiding over a lawsuit relating to Clinton’s emails, expresses puzzlement over the scandal. He notes that Clinton put the State Department in the position of having to ask her to return thousands of government records. He asks in a hearing, “Am I missing something? How in the world could this happen?” (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) He adds, “It just boggles the mind a little that the State Department allowed this practice to occur in the first place. It is very, very troubling.” (CNN, 2/23/2016) He also comments, “There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop? This case is about the public’s right to know.” (The Washington Post, 2/23/2016)

March 4, 2016: Clinton’s campaign accuses Inspector General Linick of bias without solid evidence; his staffers feel harassed.

Bloomberg News reports that “The Hillary Clinton campaign has gone on the attack against the government official who conducts oversight of the State Department she used to run [Inspector General Steve Linick], accusing him of partisanship and misconduct without any direct evidence.”

However, Linick is a difficult target because he “has never been regarded as a partisan official” and President Obama appointed him. So the attackers are focusing on Emilia DiSanto, who works in his office, and claim that she is influencing him too much. Clinton supporters argue DiSanto is biased against Clinton because she had previously worked as an investigator for Republican Senator Charles Grassley.

Bloomberg News reports that for Linick’s staff, “the accusations are impossible to confront head on because they are not authorized to speak on the record about ongoing investigations.” Furthermore, his office has been “receiving dozens of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests aimed at gathering information on office staffers themselves. Sources in the inspector general office tell me they see the requests and accusations as an attempt to intimidate them and deter them from continuing Clinton-related work.” Bloomberg News concludes, “Accusing Linick’s staffers of misconduct due to their past work affiliations is a slippery slope; tons of government employees have connections on Capitol Hill.” (Bloomberg News, 3/4/2016)

March 9, 2016: Republicans sue for more Clinton-related emails, as well as her text messages.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) files two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits seeking more emails from Clinton and her top aides.

The first lawsuit seeks all emails the State Department has that are to and from Clinton, as well as Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Patrick Kennedy, and Bryan Pagliano. (Huma Abedin isn’t included because she’s covered in another FOIA lawsuit.) The lawsuit is also seeking all of Clinton’s text messages as well as BlackBerry Messenger communications.

The second lawsuit seeks emails between senior State Department officials and Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign and its allied entities. The RNC asked the State Department for the emails in October 2015 but hadn’t gotten any yet. RNC chair Reince Priebus says, “The Obama administration has failed to comply with records requests in a timely manner as required by law.” (The Hill, 3/9/2016) 

Although Clinton says she has already turned over all her work-related emails, some more will be found by the State Department due to another limited FOIA lawsuit later in March, suggesting more could be uncovered by the department. (The Hill, 3/24/2016) (ABC News, 3/9/2016)

March 24, 2016: More of Clinton’s work-related emails that Clinton did not turn over are found.

Tom Fitton (Credit: WorldNetDaily)

Tom Fitton (Credit: WorldNetDaily)

Clinton has claimed that she turned over all her work emails and deleted only the ones that were personal. She also has claimed that she only began using her private email account on March 18, 2009.

However, Judicial Watch forced the State Department to release two previously unknown Clinton emails due to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all of her records relating to her iPhone or BlackBerry use. It’s not clear why the emails did not appear before.

Judicial Watch makes public an email to Clinton from her chief of staff Cheryl Mills on February 13, 2009 about her BlackBerry, and Clinton’s short email response.

Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, says, “So now we know that, contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her government emails. We also know why Hillary Clinton falsely suggests she didn’t use clintonemail.com account prior to March, 18, 2009—because she didn’t want Americans to know… that she knew her BlackBerry and email use was not secure.” (The Hill, 3/24/2016) (Judicial Watch, 3/24/2016) (Judicial Watch, 3/17/2016)

March 25, 2016: The FBI refuses to say much about its Clinton investigation.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit from Vice News relating to Clinton’s private server, an FBI official states that while an investigation relating to the server is on-going, “the FBI has not and cannot publicly acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation.” (Vice News, 3/26/2016)

March 29, 2016: The State Department will need to reveal more on why they kept Clinton’s emails secret.

Judge Royce Lamberth (Credit: DC District / US Courts)

Judge Royce Lamberth (Credit: DC District / US Courts)

US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth declares that Judicial Watch is entitled to more details on how Clinton’s private email account was integrated into the State Department record-keeping system and why it wasn’t searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Lamberth refers to “constantly shifting admissions by the government and the former government officials.” He says, “Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.” “Discovery” will allow Judicial Watch access to more information, and often includes depositions of targeted people.

The State Department has been slow responding to a FOIA request file in May 2014 about the government response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

A different judge granted Judicial Watch discovery in a related case in February 2016. (Politico, 3/29/2016)

April 2, 2016: Former Senator Bob Kerrey criticizes Clinton’s use of a private email server

Senator Bob Kerrey (Credit: UPI)

Senator Bob Kerrey (Credit: UPI)

Kerrey (D) says, “I have no doubt that this server was set up so that the secretary wouldn’t have to submit to [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)] law.” He also says that Clinton’s explanation for using the server is “false on its face.”

However, despite this criticism, Kerrey has endorsed Clinton in the presidential race and says he will continue to support her. (The Omaha World-Herald, 4/2/2016)

April 15, 2016: Three Clinton aides will be publicly deposed about the email scandal.

State Department lawyers strike a deal with Judicial Watch over how depositions from three Clinton aides will work. Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Bryan Pagliano will be deposed, and their depositions can be videotaped and made public.

However, questions to them will be limited to how Clinton’s private server was created and operated, as well as how the State Department processed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that potentially involved emails from Clinton and/or Abedin. Furthermore, Judicial Watch agrees not to depose Diplomatic Security official Donald Reid. The deposition of three more State Department officials, Patrick Kennedy, Lewis Lukens, and Stephen Mull, remain unresolved. (Politico, 4/16/2016)

May 4, 2016: A judge says Clinton may have to testify under oath in a court case.

US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered some of Clinton’s former top aides to testify under oath about Clinton’s private email server and how the State Department handled Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding Clinton’s emails. Based on what is revealed in those interviews, due to take place in the next two months, Sullivan says that a sworn deposition from Clinton herself “may be necessary.” Judicial Watch, who made the original FOIA requests, would have to file a separate request “at the appropriate time.”

The Associated Press notes, “That raises the possibility that Clinton could be ordered to testify in the midst of the presidential race.” (The Associated Press, 5/4/2016) (LawNewz, 5/4/2016)

May 4, 2016: Six former State Department officials are to be deposed under oath in the next two months.

Lewis Lukens (Credit: public domain)

Lewis Lukens (Credit: public domain)

US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan says the depositions are necessary in order to determine if the department conducted an adequate search regarding Judicial Watch’s 2013 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the employment of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, since she had three outside jobs at one point.

Deposition questions are to be limited to the set-up and management of Clinton’s private server, since the department failed to reveal Clinton’s emails on the server in response to the FOIA request. The former aides due to be deposed in the next two months are:

  • Huma Abedin
  • Cheryl Mills
  • Bryan Pagliano
  • Patrick Kennedy
  • Stephen Mull
  • Lewis Lukens
  • plus, someone to be decided by the State Department.

Judicial Watch could make a video of their interviews public. (LawNewz, 5/4/2016) (The Associated Press, 5/4/2016)

May 5, 2016: Some of Clinton’s emails may remain private because of a legal precedent involving former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger participate in "Conversations on Diplomacy, Moderated by Charlie Rose,” at the Department of State in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2011. AFP Photo/Jewel Samad (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Clinton and Henry Kissinger in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2011. (Credit: Jewel  Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Kissinger made transcripts of some of his work-related phone calls. After he left office in January 1977, he took the only copies with him and eventually had them transferred to the Library of Congress, with tight restrictions on who could access them. A watchdog group sued for access, but the US Supreme Court ruled in a five-to-two decision that the State Department had no obligation to search for documents that had been removed, even if they had been improperly taken.

However, there is a footnote written by Justice William Rehnquist that the ruling might not apply when someone is actively trying to thwart the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In two ongoing civil suits, judges have granted discovery to Judicial Watch in part to determine if Clinton or her aides had actively tried to thwart FOIA. That opens the possibility of a judge eventually ordering Clinton to hand over even the emails she deemed personal, if she still has them. (Time, 5/5/2016)

May 5, 2016: The State Department may postpone releasing documents about Clinton’s email security procedures until after the November 2016 presidential election.

Jason Koebler (Credit: Vice News)

Jason Koebler (Credit: Vice News)

In March 2015, shortly after Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email and server was first publicly revealed, Vice News filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department for all “communications, presentations, and procedures created by the State Department to secure Hillary Clinton’s email from electronic threats.” In 2015, the Department began releasing some relevant emails, but no other relevant documents have been released.

After two delays, on this day, Vice News is told by the Department that the “estimated completion date” for the FOIA request has been “extended to December 2016.”

Vice News reporter Jason Koebler comments, “The FOIA process is a notorious mess, but it is patently ridiculous that records pertaining to the security practices of someone who stands a very good chance of running the country—and thus being in possession of highly sensitive documents at all times—won’t be made available to the public a year and a half after they were requested.” (Vice News, 5/5/2016)

May 5, 2016: 36 more Clinton emails are publicly released, suggesting many more still to come.

In January 2016, a federal judge ordered the State Department to release all the known emails of Huma Abedin from her time as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. This is in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Judicial Watch.

Over 29,000 pages of emails are due to be released in batches, and this is the first batch of 241 pages. Some of the emails are between Abedin and Clinton, and most if not all of them appear to be work-related, showing yet again that Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails when she gave the State Department over 30,000 emails in December 2014.

21 of the emails between Abedin and Clinton date from January 28, 2009 to March 17, 2009; Clinton had said she didn’t use her new email account until March 18, 2009.

Another 15 emails between them date between March 18, 2009 to October 20, 2012, and do not match any of emails in the State Department’s database of the 30,000 publicly released Clinton emails. Whereas 16 emails dating from March 20, 2009 to May 28, 2009 do appear in that database. (Judicial Watch, 5/5/2016) (US Department of State, 5/1/2016) (US Department of State, 5/1/2016) 

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton comments, “These emails further undermine Hillary Clinton’s statement, under penalty of perjury, suggesting she turned over all of her government emails to the State Department. How many more Hillary Clinton emails is the Obama State Department hiding?” (Judicial Watch, 5/5/2016) Since these emails appear to be:

  • a more or less random selection from all four years of Clinton’s time as secretary of state
  • about half of the emails from March 18, 2009 and afterwards are not included in the 30,000 previously released emails
  • this batch makes up less than one percent of all the Huma Abedin emails due to be released
  • Abedin’s emails make up only about 15 percent of the 30,000 emails

One can reasonably estimate that thousands of the over 31,000 emails Clinton deleted actually are work-related and are likely to be publicly released in later batch releases of Abedin’s emails as well as FOIA lawsuits forcing the release of emails from other top Clinton aides. In fact, if this sample is a truly random sample representative of the rest of the emails from Abedin and other top Clinton aides, well over 10,000 of Clinton’s deleted emails could be work-related.

May 9, 2016: Clinton’s text messages can’t be found.

In March 2016, the Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for more of Clinton’s communications. For the first time, that included a request for all of her text and Blackberry Messenger communications.

However, on this day, the RNC states in a court filing that the State Department has recently informed them that it has not found any documents responsive to that request. (ABC News, 5/9/2016) It is possible some texts could still be on Clinton’s BlackBerry, but it is unclear what happened to it, as there have been no media reports that it was given to the FBI.

May 12, 2016: Over 120 additional Clinton emails are publicly released.

More of Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state are released by the State Department, due to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits by Judicial Watch. In 2015, Clinton claimed that she didn’t start using her new private email address until March 18, 2009. But all these emails date from before then.

There are 15 emails using her old email address from January 22, 2009 (one day after she became secretary of state) to February 26, 2009. There are another 108 emails using her new email address (hosted on her private server) from January 30, 2009 to March 8, 2009. (Judicial Watch, 5/12/2016) (US Department of State, 4/29/2016) (US Department of State, 4/29/2016) (US Department of State, 4/29/2016) 

LawNewz notes that this email release “contradicts claims made by Clinton and her campaign that she did not begin using the private e-mail server until March 2009. […] The dates of the newly released e-mails also appear to contradict a declaration signed by Clinton, under penalty of perjury, saying she surrendered all her work-related e-mails to the State Department on December 5, 2014.” (LawNewz, 5/13/2016)

May 13, 2016: Clinton clearly violated the Federal Records Act (FRA), but the act is “effectively toothless” when it comes to punishing her.

Dan Metcalfe, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy for 25 years, writes an editorial noting that penalties for violating the FRA are limited to monetary or administrative sanctions, and those can only be applied to people who are still federal employees when violations are discovered.

He says that Clinton’s conduct with her emails “violated the Federal Records Act from beginning to end, including through what appears to be her utter failure to meet any of the requirements placed on a departing employee. This amounts to what can be viewed as the biggest, most consequential violation of the FRA in its history, as well as a blatant circumvention of the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] the likes of which have never before been seen.” However, she will face no penalty for violating this law because she is no longer a federal employee.

Metcalfe calls for Congress to “update the Federal Records Act to provide meaningful sanctions” to prevent others from doing what Clinton did. Nevertheless, Metcalfe says he is a Democrat and will support Clinton if she is not indicted. (LawNewz, 5/13/2015)

May 16, 2016: Clinton may be forced to testify under oath in a civil lawsuit related to her emails.

Judicial Watch formally asks US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth for permission to depose Clinton as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

This is actually one of two similar cases involving Judicial Watch and Clinton. In the other case, handled by federal judge Emmet Sullivan, Judicial Watch has not asked for Clinton’s deposition yet, but they may do so in the future, and they are deposing some of her former aides. In this case, Clinton could be forced to testify under oath about her use of a private email account for government work as well as the State Department’s response to FOIA requests for information related to the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. (Politico, 05/16/2016)

May 17, 2016: Depositions in a civil lawsuit related to Clinton’s emails will begin within days and continue until the end of June.

US District Judge Emmet Sullivan is allowing Judicial Watch to depose six US officials under oath, mostly Clinton’s former aides, as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, on the following dates:

  • May 18: Former deputy assistant secretary of state Lewis Lukens will be interviewed on May 18.
  • May 27: Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.
  • June 3: Stephen Mull, former State Department executive secretary.
  • June 6: Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former computer technician who managed her private server.
  • June 28: Huma Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff.
  • June 29: Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary for management since 2007 until current.

Judicial Watch can interview each witness for up to seven hours, and the video of the interviews can be made public several days later. The questioning will be limited, but includes the issue of how Clinton’s private server was set up and managed, and why the State Department didn’t properly fulfill FOIA requests for Clinton’s emails. (The Wall Street Journal, 5/17/2016) (Judicial Watch, 5/17/2015)

May 18, 2016: Former Clinton aide Lewis Lukens testifies under oath for two hours about his knowledge of Clinton’s emails and private server.

Lewis Lukens (Credit: Harry Hamburg / The Associated Press)

Lewis Lukens (Credit: Harry Hamburg / The Associated Press)

Lukens has been deposed as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Judicial Watch. He is the first of six to be deposed as part of that lawsuit, which is presided over by federal judge Emmet Sullivan. (The New York Times, 5/18/2016) (Judicial Watch v. State Lukens Testimony 01363 5/26/2016)

May 26, 2016: Some on Clinton’s campaign allegedly privately admit that Clinton tried to keep her emails from public scrutiny.

Carl Bernstein's "A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," published January, 2008. (Credit: Amazon)

Carl Bernstein’s “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” published January, 2008. (Credit: Amazon)

Journalist Carl Bernstein says that Clinton “set up a home brew server for purposes of evading the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], evading subpoenas from Congress, that’s its real purpose, to not have accountability, to not have transparency.”

He alleges, “if you talk to people around the Clinton campaign very quietly, they will acknowledge to you, if you are a reporter who knows some of the background, that this is the purpose of it. Is so she would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. So that—because the e-mails aren’t there, that nobody knew about this server.”

He also calls the recently released State Department inspector general report “a devastating event for Hillary Clinton. It is a time bomb that has been ticking and it’s starting to explode around her and there’s more to come because the FBI’s investigation is ongoing.”

In addition to his famous role exposing the Watergate scandal, Bernstein wrote a 2008 book about Clinton. (CNN, 5/27/2016)

May 26, 2016: A judge blocks the release of audio and video of six Clinton aide depositions, but not the transcripts.

US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan grants a recent request from Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills to keep audio and video recordings of her upcoming deposition from being made public, at least for now. Mills, who is due to be deposed one day later, argued that such recordings could be used for political purposes against Clinton in the presidential election.

Sullivan writes, “The public has a right to know details related to the creation, purpose and use of the clintonemail.com system. Thus, the transcripts of all depositions taken in this case will be publicly available. It is therefore unnecessary to also make the audiovisual recording of Ms. Mills’ deposition public.” On his own initiative, Sullivan blocks the release of all audio and video recordings of the five other former Clinton aides due to be deposed in the suit he is presiding over.

Politico reports, “Sullivan did not signal what his concern was about improper use of the videos, nor did he explain whether he agreed with Mills’ attorneys that the videos were more susceptible to misuse or distortion than the written transcripts that will be released.” Sullivan orders that the audio and video should be filed with the court, raising the possibility they could be released later. (Politico, 5/26/2016)

May 26, 2016: Justice Department lawyers are “wholly opposed” to Clinton being deposed in a civil suit related to her emails.

Justice Department lawyers oppose Judicial Watch’s request that Clinton give a sworn deposition. There are two closely related civil suits in which Judicial Watch has been granted the right of discovery, allowing them to depose witnesses. Six of Clinton’s former aides are already being deposed in the suit presided over by federal judge Emmet Sullivan.

Judicial Watch recently requested that Clinton be deposed in the other suit, presided over by federal judge Royce Lamberth. However, department lawyers argue that Lamberth should let the depositions in the other case play out before allowing Clinton to be deposed in his case. They call the request “wholly inappropriate,” adding, “Judicial Watch makes no attempt here to justify why the witnesses it names would provide any relevant information that is not redundant and cumulative of the discovery that has already been ordered and initiated.”

However, while they oppose Clinton being deposed, they do not oppose Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Clinton aide Jake Sullivan. So far, Judicial Watch has not asked for Clinton or Sullivan to be deposed in the other suit. (Politico, 5/27/2016)

June 1, 2016: Pagliano will refuse to answer questions in his upcoming deposition.

Lawyers for Clinton’s former computer technician Bryan Pagliano say he “will assert the Fifth Amendment and will decline to answer each and every question” when deposed by Judicial Watch as part of a civil suit on June 6.

Pagliano previously refused to speak to the House Benghazi Committee or Congressional investigators. However, it has been reported that he made an immunity deal with the Justice Department as part of cooperating with the FBI’s Clinton investigation.

Also, despite the fact that Pagliano plans on not answering any questions, his lawyers also ask that no video recording of his deposition be made. US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has already ruled that videos of the deposition should be put under seal. However, Pagliano’s lawyers argue there still could be a chance a video could be released later. (Politico, 6/1/2016) (The Hill, 6/1/2016)

Two days later, Sullivan announces that Pagliano’s deposition will be postponed until issues about his pleading the Fifth are resolved. Sullivan has asked Pagliano’s lawyers to reveal the scope of the immunity deal between Pagliano and the Justice Department, and how that could affect this civil case. There are different types of immunity deals, and until now it hasn’t been clear which type applies to Pagliano. (Politico, 6/3/2016) (The Hill, 6/3/2016)

June 1, 2016: More emails relating to Clinton and the Clinton Foundation will be publicly released.

US District Court Judge Ketanji Jackson (Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / The National Law Journal)

US District Court Judge Ketanji Jackson (Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / The National Law Journal)

US District Court Judge Ketanji Jackson orders USAID [The US Agency for International Development] to make public more Clinton-related emails.

In December 2015, The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed two Freedom of Information Act requests to USAID. One was for all emails between the 16 top USAID officials and a number of web domains related to Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation. The second was for all emails between those top USAID officials and ten former State Department officials considered close to the Clintons.

Eight hundred pages of emails matching the request will be made public by July 11, 2016. USAID says it needs to consult with the State Department regarding another 2,600 pages. Judge Jackson wants a timetable for the release of those, but that is still to be determined.

Politico reports, “The requests appear to focus on Clinton critics’ claims that the activities of the Clinton Foundation and of some former aides to the Clintons improperly influenced official business at the State Department and USAID.”

Jackson was appointed by President Obama. (Politico, 6/1/2016)

June 6, 2016: The State Department won’t process a FOIA request with important political implications until after the presidential election.

David Sirota (Credit: David Sirota)

David Sirota (Credit: David Sirota)

In July 2015, journalist David Sirota filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain all of Clinton’s correspondence regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In November 2015, the State Department told Sirota that the request would be fulfilled by April 2016. But on this day, the department pushes the deadline back to the end of November 2016—just after the general presidential election in early November.

While Clinton was secretary of state, she praised the TPP on over 45 different occasions and called it the “gold standard” of trade deals. Since then, she says she’s changed her mind and is against it. Sirota wants to know how involved she was in crafting the deal. This could have important political implications because Clinton’s chief primary opponent Bernie Sanders is strongly against the TPP and her likely general election opponent Donald Trump is against it as well. The average FOIA request made of the State Department takes 111 days to process, but based on the latest day, this one will take 489 days.

CNN journalist Jake Tapper comments, “The Department Inspector General [IG] in January noted that the State Department is particularly weak among Obama administration agencies when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this law, the IG said that responses to these requests are deficient, that there aren’t enough personnel at the State Department to carry out all the requests, and that State Department leaders have not played a meaningful role in making any improvements. At a certain point, one begins to wonder if these weaknesses are deliberate and that these efforts to conceal information do not conceal a certain disdain for the public and your right to know.” (CNN, 6/6/2016)

June 6, 2016: The FBI is treating everything on Clinton’s private server as evidence or possible evidence in their Clinton investigation.

Jason Leopold (Credit: FOIA Project)

Jason Leopold (Credit: FOIA Project)

In a legal case, Vice News journalist Jason Leopold has tried to get the FBI to reveal more details of their investigation. The FBI has refused to do so, but in a court filing, the FBI comments: “[A]ll of the materials retrieved from any electronic equipment obtained from former Secretary Clinton for the investigation are evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value.” Furthermore, the release of any of that additional information “could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending investigation.” (The Hill, 6/8/2016)

June 7, 2016: Pagliano is revealed to have received a limited immunity that leaves him open to prosecution.

Clinton’s former computer technician Bryan Pagliano files a copy of his immunity deal with the Department of Justice as part of a civil suit presided over by US District Judge Emmet Sullivan. Pagliano asks that the deal remain secret, and Sullivan will agree to that several days later. However, in making the filing, Pagliano’s lawyers mention that he was granted “derivative use” immunity in December 2015.

LawNewz explains this form of immunity “does not prevent the government from prosecuting Pagliano, but just limits them from using any evidence derived from Pagliano’s testimony against him.” His lawyers are arguing that what he might say in a deposition in this court case could be used against him in the FBI’s Clinton investigation, despite the immunity deal. (LawNewz, 6/7/2016)

June 8, 2016: It remains unknown if the State Department’s legal office was aware of Clinton’s use of a private email server.

While deposed in a civil lawsuit by Judicial Watch, State Department official Karin Lang declines to say whether or not the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser was aware of Clinton’s private server. She also declines to say whether the department’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process or searches were adequate when Judicial Watch in 2013 requested records that could have included emails from Clinton.

Lang is accompanied by four lawyers for the State and Justice departments in the deposition, and they object that such questions violate attorney-client privilege or are a legal judgment. (The Washington Post, 6/8/2016)

June 9, 2016: State Department lawyers argue they cannot identify which department employees conducted government business on Clinton’s private server.

In a court filing in a civil suit, they argue they cannot do this since the department has never been in possession of the server. It is known that Clinton and her deputy chief of staff had clintonemail.com email accounts on the server, but it is still unclear who else at the department may have. Apparently, Department officials have not tried to check if emails sent from Clinton’s former top aides had email addresses ending in clintonemail.com. (CNN, 6/9/2016)

June 10, 2016: Justice Department lawyers want the details of Pagliano’s immunity deal to remain a secret.

Bryan Pagliano was Clinton’s computer technician, and he made an immunity deal with the Justice Department in late 2015.

Several days earlier his lawyers revealed to federal judge Emmet Sullivan that it was a limited “derivative use” immunity deal. But they argue that releasing more details of “Mr. Pagliano’s agreements with the United States could prematurely reveal the scope and focus of the pending investigation.” Furthermore, “The FBI cannot publicly disclose the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation without adversely affecting the investigation.” (Politico, 6/10/2016)

 Several days later, Sullivan will agree to keep the details a secret.