The Issa letter may have been less directly asking about HRC than the news story suggests

[karynnj]

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:58 PM - Edit history (2)

Here is what was said in the State Department briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: The New York Times had a report out today showing that Congress – or Chairman Issa sent a letter to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State asking about her use of personal email, and the State Department got back after she had left in March of 2013. Do you have any response to that or --

MR RATHKE: Response to what particular aspect of it?

QUESTION: The reason for the delay in response or why it was that the response didn’t occur in December of 2012 when the letter was first --

MR RATHKE: Well, I think as you’re probably aware but maybe it bears repeating, we receive thousands of requests from Congress every year. We responded to this request in – it was in December of 2012 that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent a letter to the State Department and other cabinet agencies, and it requested information on the department’s policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications. And so in March 2013 the department responded to the inquiry. We described our policies in detail. We included also relevant attachments that governed the department’s policies. So that’s – that was the nature of the response, and we continue to work closely with Congress on various issues related to the policies and procedures of the State Department.

Yeah.

QUESTION: But the (inaudible) did not answer the questions from Issa’s letter, did you?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, the chairman’s letter asked about the department’s policies and practices, and we responded on those policies and practices.

QUESTION: But the first question from Chairman Issa’s letter was: Does any senior official at the State Department use a private email account? And I did not see that in the response.

MR RATHKE: Well, we responded to the committee in detail on our policy. I don’t have anything more to add.

QUESTION: But do you acknowledge you didn’t answer the question?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, the question was focused on on the policies and practices. I don’t have anything further to add.

QUESTION: But the first question is: Does – was very specific. It said: Does anybody, any senior official, have a private email account?

MR RATHKE: Yeah. I just don’t have anything more to add on that.

QUESTION: Well, in March ‘13 did any senior official have a private email account?

MR RATHKE: Did any of them have a private email account? How do you --

QUESTION: Well, when you answered the letter, did any of them have – first of all, why – is three months the normal timeframe that it takes to respond to a --

MR RATHKE: I don’t know if I have the statistics on the length of time to respond to congressional inquiries. I mean, sometimes the response takes some time. I don’t --

QUESTION: Three months? I mean, is that --

MR RATHKE: Again, we get --

QUESTION: You said you’re deluged with them, and I’m just wondering.

MR RATHKE: We get thousands of requests. I don’t have a timeline of the average response time.

QUESTION: Okay. But the question that Lucas raises – well, the question that Chairman Issa raised in the letter was not answered, correct? I mean, it may be that by the time that you got around to answering the letter the people who had private email accounts had already left and weren’t working for the State Department anymore and --

MR RATHKE: Yeah, I’m happy to look and see if there’s – if there’s more detail on that.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/04/240725.htm

Somethings that appear distorted:
1) This was a request sent to multiple departments.
2) It was answered in March -- at which point most Clinton people had left -- in fact, they were incredibly involved in staffing all those positions. So, at the point they answered the question, which appears NOT to have asked about HRC, the question would have related to John Kerry, who was using state.gov.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Issa is a liar and a criminal...anything he is involved in is tainted

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Yep -

Consider the source. How much money did he get from the insurance company for arson again?

[karynnj]

3. You absolutely missed my point

Issa has very little credibility with anyone, but he DOES have a committee that does have the ability to question things done by the executive branch. He has used that ability for many things of questionable merit.

The point of what I wrote was that the NYT article - if you cared to read it - says he asked HILLARY ClINTON. That is repeated in various ways several times in the first few paragraphs and there are others who have taken precisely that wording.

What is the difference? You might be too young to remember Watergate -- it was not what was originally done that destroyed Nixon -- it was the coverup. This, however - was not a coverup on the part of either Clinton.

The intent of the article is to suggest that Hillary (or the State Department) hid that she kept her email off the government server sheltering it from legitimate FOIA demands and Congressional scrutiny. The articles - and the reporters asking questions - all asked why the State Department did not "answer the first question" - which they defined as specifically about Clinton.

However, that was NOT the question. The question was of "the top officials" - which when the question was answered consisted of Kerry and the people still there. The policy - judging by Kerry's own practice and the written policy at that point - was to use the government email. The answer is certainly defensible - as it was accurate when it was written. The question did not specify CLINTON or ask what the practice was over the past year.

It is also easy to defend that the State Department taking until March to respond - especially considering that there was a major transition with Clinton leaving and Kerry entering.

The reason I posted this was because there had to be someone behind putting this story out and it was put out in the most damning way possible. From reading the NYT article, it appears that Issa legitimately asked a question that would have revealed Clinton's practices -- and he was stonewalled. In fact, the question was far more routine - sent to many departments - and clearly sent through a routine procedure and answered giving the March (or February) information.

When the facts are behind you, it is better to have and use them -- then to simply attack the other side.