The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing today with FBI Director James Comey in an effort to extend the conversation about Hillary Clinton’s email use, even after the case has been closed.
Read some of the reaction:
]]>Jason Chaffetz has his personal gmail address on his business card. “Hillary Clinton isn’t the only official who uses a non-government email address. A business card obtained by ABC News shows that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, lists his Gmail address on his official House card. After it was revealed on Tuesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted all of her government business from personal email accounts, personal email has been the topic du jour, and Chaffetz is at the forefront. Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, announced Tuesday that his panel would join in an investigation of Clinton’s email use. ‘Violations of the Federal Records Act within federal agencies is something we take very seriously,’ Chaffetz said Tuesday in a statement. ‘The House Oversight Committee will work with [Rep. Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi to further explore Hillary Clinton’s use of personal emails while at the State Department.’ Chaffetz told ABC News that his business card was not paid for with government funds and that Congress is not subject to the Federal Records Act. He said that he uses both a Gmail account and a government email account.”
The House Oversight Committee Republicans, during a hearing on the attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, revealed classified information.
“Gowdy appears to accidentally release CIA source’s name”
Sen. Grassley suggested “political interference” in its investigation should prompt the FBI “to leak” information to damage Hillary Clinton politically. “A hypothetical leak could occur, he said, if officials believed Clinton was not being prosecuted for political reasons. ‘Is there going to be political interference? If there’s enough evidence to prosecute, will there be political interference?’ the Iowa senator asked during a meeting on Friday with the Des Moines A.M. Rotary club, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. ‘And if there’s political interference, then I assume that somebody in the FBI is going to leak these reports and it’s either going to have an effect politically or it’s going to lead to prosecution if there’s enough evidence,’ he said.”
In March, Grassley suggested that the FBI could leak information if the investigation did not lead to an indictment and embarrass the administration. “GRASSLEY: Well, here’s what I think you got to start with, first of all Comey’s got a tenured term. Secondly, you’ve got to realize that in a Bush administration he was asked to do something that he thought was on illegal or unconstitutional and he decided to resign, so I think he’s got a good reputation. The FBI’s got a good reputation. And if they give enough evidence that she ought to be indicted and she’s not indicted then I think something’s going to be leaked from the FBI and the administration’s going to be embarrassed.”
During a February town hall, Grassley stated his belief that “you’re going to get something leaked about how bad she may have been” if the Department of Justice fails to prosecute Clinton. “Let’s suppose that for political reasons they don’t want to do it [prosecute Clinton] even if there’s a lot of stuff against her, but this isn’t made public then you don’t know. But it seems to me that you’re going to get something leaked about how bad she may have been or may turn out to be and then there will be political pressure to prosecute. Or in the meantime, you could have a situation where the Attorney General would say it’s too politically hot, I’m going to appoint a special counsel. And then you put it off for another, I don’t know how long.”
Sen. Harry Reid: “It’s wrong for any senator…to urge a selective leaking of any federal investigation.” “It’s wrong for any senator, especially the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who deals with these issues day after day, to urge a selective leaking of any federal investigation. The FBI isn’t in the business of disclosing information to appease political operatives.”
OIG Report did not find any successful breaches of her system.
However, I think it’s important to underscore that the OIG itself says that this report is not a report on the security of any secretary’s email systems, including Secretary Clinton’s. There are no findings about the security of Secretary Clinton’s email system. The hacking email that is referenced includes language to the effect that the hack was not successful. That’s just from the email that it cited. But beyond that there’s no finding one way or the other about the security.
However, I think it’s important to underscore that the OIG itself says that this report is not a report on the security of any secretary’s email systems, including Secretary Clinton’s. There are no findings about the security of Secretary Clinton’s email system. The hacking email that is referenced includes language to the effect that the hack was not successful. That’s just from the email that it cited. But beyond that there’s no finding one way or the other about the security.
FBI investigation into Guccifer found no sign he breached Clinton’s server.
However, I think it’s important to underscore that the OIG itself says that this report is not a report on the security of any secretary’s email systems, including Secretary Clinton’s. There are no findings about the security of Secretary Clinton’s email system. The hacking email that is referenced includes language to the effect that the hack was not successful. That’s just from the email that it cited. But beyond that there’s no finding one way or the other about the security.
CONTACT: Correct The Record
Lizzy Price / Daniel Wessel (202) 540-9629
Washington, DC – Correct The Record today demanded that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the State Department complete a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request CTR sent over four weeks ago for the emails of Deputy Inspector General Emilia DiSanto. CTR also echoed calls for DiSanto to recuse herself from matters related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after it was reported in The Hill that a whistleblower from within the OIG said the office had become increasingly partisan and had an “anti-Clinton” bias. Specifically, it was revealed that Deputy Inspector General DiSanto was working with an “active partisan mandate to undermine both the State Department…and Secretary Clinton.”
“Yesterday’s new allegations of bias have cast serious doubt on the impartiality of the OIG, who is responsible for independently overseeing the State Department,” said Brad Woodhouse President of Correct The Record. “In light of these troubling revelations, the OIG should immediately adhere to our FOIA request and release all of Emilia DiSanto’s emails. Additionally, DiSanto should recuse herself from handling any matters related to Hillary Clinton.”
Over four weeks ago, following previous allegations of bias and leaks, CTR submitted a FOIA request for communications between Emilia DiSanto and members of the Senate or their staff. DiSanto is a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and has previously been accused of leaking information and documents about Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The Hill story referenced is below.
The Hill: Clinton chief attacks State Dept. watchdog
By Amie Parnes
March 1, 2016 6:00 a.m. EDT
John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, says there are “serious questions” about the integrity of the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The OIG is locked in an increasingly contentious fight with Clinton’s campaign on a host of issues, including her use of a private email account during her time as secretary of State.
It has also reportedly subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation for documents related to charity projects and is investigating close Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s work as a “special government consultant” while she worked at State.
A source within the OIG contacted The Hill claiming that the office has grown increasingly partisan, accusing it of having an “anti-Clinton” bias.
Told by The Hill about the remarks, Podesta described the source as a “whistleblower” whose comments called into question the integrity of the OIG investigations.
“This person’s account is highly troubling, and is cause to ask serious questions about the independence of this office,” Podesta said of the source. The Clinton campaign says it does not know the identity of the source.
An OIG official strongly disputed the source’s account.
“Partisan politics play no role in OIG’s work,” the spokesman said Monday.
The source charges that State Inspector General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto, the OIG deputy director and a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
Grassley is at the center of several investigations about Clinton, including whether Abedin was overpaid by the government while working for the State Department. He’s been aided in his probe by what he says is a “confidential source” at the OIG — Democrats charge this is DiSanto.
“Our work is becoming overtly anti-State Department, pro-Republican, and anti-Clinton,” the OIG source said, charging that DiSanto is working with an “active partisan mandate to undermine both the State Department as a federal agency and Secretary Clinton as a presidential candidate.”
The source also charged that Linick is “more or less under her control, possibly out of a desire for a more prestigious appointed position.”
Grassley’s staff and the OIG have strongly pushed back at those assertions.
The OIG spokesman noted that Linick, a two-time appointee of President Obama, was asked by Secretary of State John Kerry last year to investigate how the department handles records management, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and the archiving of emails. The request was made on the heels of questions about Clinton’s use of a private email server.
So far, the OIG has issued a report on its handling of FOIA requests. The State Department has accepted all of the OIG’s recommendations.
“At all times, State OIG operates as an independent organization, consistent with the law,” the official said. “Our work will continue to be unbiased, objective, and fact-based. We are currently reviewing the email practices of the current and last four Secretaries of State, including the impact of these practices on FOIA and agency record keeping requirements. Any suggestion that the office is biased against any particular Secretary is completely false.”
Jill Gerber, a spokeswoman for Grassley, also maintained that “inspectors general work hard to stay out of politics.
“Their credibility and effectiveness depend on being independent, so accusations of political bias are serious charges to make, especially without evidence,” Gerber said. “Senator Grassley’s office has a professional relationship with the State Department’s inspector general’s office, as with many such offices.”
Clinton and other Democrats have been irritated by the OIG investigations for some time.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a phone call with Grassley accused him of getting help on his investigation from a former aide in the OIG office.
At the same time, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) has also questioned the office’s impartiality.
“That office should be independent and trustworthy, but the more we find out, the more I question its ability to conduct an impartial investigation,” Israel said in a statement to The Hill.
Clinton campaign officials have argued that the various OIG probes are simply intended to hurt Clinton’s presidential campaign.
“They have mounted several different fishing expedition-style investigations since she decided to run for president,” Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer last month. “There’s no basis to any of them, and I think that it’s intended to create headwinds for her campaign.”
Grassley, his staff and the OIG argue that Clinton’s campaign and fellow Democrats are trying to muddy the OIG investigations by besmirching its reputation.
After Reid ripped Grassley’s investigation on the Senate floor last fall, the Iowa Republican fired back.
“It’s well known that Sen. Reid uses the Senate floor to politicize topics in a way that’s helpful to the Democratic Party, President Obama and now Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign,” Gerber told The Hill late last year.
Grassley has been among several Republicans leading the charge on the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State. He has scrutinized Abedin’s time sheets, concerned she was possibly overpaid while on maternity leave.
Abedin’s “special government employee” status allowed her to work simultaneously at the State Department and as an outside consultant to Clinton. Abedin currently serves as the vice chairwoman of Clinton’s campaign.
Gerber argued that while Clinton was at State, Harold Geisel, a career State Department official, served as interim IG and that “Secretary Clinton and her political operatives aren’t used to the work of a permanent, Senate-confirmed inspector general since she didn’t have one during her entire tenure as secretary.
“If Secretary Clinton and her aides want to resolve the many outstanding questions, they should start cooperating more fully with investigators and stop seeing a conspiracy only where there is independent oversight,” Gerber said.
Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
Correct The Record ∙ http://correct2016.wpengine.com/∙ Facebook ∙ @CorrectRecord
###
]]>Trey Gowdy: “If you ask me, the eyewitnesses on the ground that night in Benghazi are more important to me as a former prosecutor, than the former secretary of state.” “‘By the time we’re through,’ Gowdy said, ‘we will have interviewed 70 witnesses. She’s one out of 70. I get that she gets more attention than the other 69. But, frankly, if you ask me, the eyewitnesses on the ground that night in Benghazi are more important to me, as a former prosecutor, than the former secretary of state.’” [Yahoo, 10/18/15]
Chaser
Trey Gowdy skipped interviews with three of the four diplomatic security agents who survived the terrorist attack, and attended witness interviews connected to Hillary Clinton. “If you look at the witness interviews he’s attended, and not attended, there is a clear theme: Gowdy is mostly there for the people directly connected to Clinton…Gowdy has attended fewer than 10 of the 53. He was there for Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff when she was secretary of state; Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff and current foreign policy adviser on her presidential campaign; Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton adviser; and Bryan Pagliano, a State Department staffer who managed Clinton’s private email server. Whom didn’t Gowdy go to hear? Three of the four diplomatic security agents who survived the terrorist attack. He also didn’t attend interviews with CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell or former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn.” [Huffington Post, 10/16/15]
]]>“It’s tragic but unsurprising that Jim Jordan has used his power to peddle in partisan smear campaigns and conspiracy theories—hiding facts and using partisan tactics to politicize the tragedy in Benghazi, as well as Planned Parenthood, Obamacare and a host of other issues,” said Daniel Wessel of Correct The Record.
“The Benghazi Committee Republicans’ abuse of power and misuse of taxpayer funds run deep. With so much at stake in 2016, the American people deserve better than partisan hackery with no basis in the facts.”
Find out more information, click here to get the full report.
]]>
“It’s tragic but unsurprising that Martha Roby has used her power to peddle in partisan smear campaigns and conspiracy theories—hiding facts and using partisan tactics to politicize the tragedy in Benghazi, as well as Planned Parenthood and a host of other issues,” said Daniel Wessel of Correct The Record.
“The Benghazi Committee Republicans’ abuse of power and misuse of taxpayer funds run deep. With so much at stake in 2016, the American people deserve better than partisan hackery with no basis in the facts.”
Find out more information, click here to get the full report.
]]>
“It’s tragic but unsurprising that Trey Gowdy has used his power to peddle in partisan smear campaigns and conspiracy theories—hiding facts and using partisan tactics to politicize the tragedy in Benghazi, as well as Planned Parenthood and a host of other issues,” said Daniel Wessel of Correct The Record.
“The Benghazi Committee Republicans’ abuse of power and misuse of taxpayer funds run deep. With so much at stake in 2016, the American people deserve better than partisan hackery with no basis in the facts.”
Find out more information, click here to get the full report.
]]>
It’s almost like there’s nothing the Republican Party won’t do—no hypocrisy they won’t embrace—to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President.
KARL ROVE:
CHRIS CHRISTIE:
“The real story is this — I believe in my heart — that Hillary Clinton doesn’t want us to know what she’s doing. She believes we don’t have a right to know. When I’m president of the United States, you have a right to know what your president is doing, and we have the obligation to be held accountable for what we’re doing.” – Chris Christie [CNN, 8/30/15]
22 White House officials “including Karl Rove, the chief political strategist” used private RNC email accounts for government business. “Political advisers to President Bush may have improperly used their Republican National Committee e-mail accounts to conduct official government business, and some communications that are required to be preserved under federal law may be lost as a result, White House officials said Wednesday. Of the 1,000 White House officials with political duties, 22 — including Karl Rove, the chief political strategist — have Republican National Committee accounts that are supposed to be used only for campaign-related work. But recent revelations that some officials have used those accounts for Bush administration business, including discussions of a plan to dismiss United States attorneys, has prompted a Congressional investigation.” [New York Times, 4/12/07]
A congressional investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys “revealed that Rove and other political staffers at the White house conducted a good deal of business using private e-mail” and equipment provided by the RNC. “The present official is political czar Karl Rove, long regarded by friend and foe alike as some kind of cutting-edge genius, who seems to have the darnedest time figuring out this newfangled e-mail stuff. Apparently he thought he had it figured out. The congressional investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys has revealed that Rove and other political staffers at the White House conducted a good deal of business using private e-mail addresses– and laptop computers — provided by the Republican National Committee. This was supposed to have been a way to avoid using government equipment to conduct partisan political business. But the White House now acknowledges that official business may have been done through this parallel system.” [Eugene Robinson opinion, Washington Post, 4/17/15]
Karl Rove’s deputy and executive assistant used georgewbush.com and rnchq.org email addresses to discuss government business with an aide to Jack Abramoff. “Barry Jackson, a deputy to Rove, in 2003 used a ‘georgewbush.com’ e-mail account to consult with Neil G. Volz, then an aide to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, about nominating one of Abramoff’s Indian tribe clients for a Medal of Freedom, according to a copy of an e-mail. Abramoff is now serving a prison sentence for bank fraud, and Volz plead guilty to conspiracy charges last year. Susan B. Ralston, while she was executive assistant to Rove, similarly used ‘georgewbush.com’ and ‘rnchq.org’ e-mail accounts to confer in 2001 and 2003 with Abramoff, her former boss, about matters of interest to Abramoff’s clients.” [Washington Post, 3/27/07]
Karl Rove used an email account with the gwb43.com domain name provided by the RNC to email government officials. “Some White House officials, including Rove, use the RNC’s gwb43.com e-mail domain (an abbreviation for George W. Bush 43). Communications originating from that RNC domain written by White House political affairs aide Scott Jennings to officials in the Justice Department appeared in the first batch of e-mails given to the House and Senate Judiciary committees last week. The Jennings e-mails stamped with the RNC domain, as well as e-mails from then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy sent through the official White House system, were captured on Justice Department servers.” [Eugene Robinson opinion, Washington Post, 4/17/15]
White House officials used national committee email accounts ending in gwb43.com to discuss the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys. “The flap grows out of the investigation into the dismissals of the prosecutors. E-mail messages provided to Congress in that inquiry showed that Scott Jennings, a deputy political director for Mr. Bush, used his national committee address, ending in gwb43.com, to discuss them with aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, including D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned amid the ensuing uproar.” [New York Times, 4/12/07]
Government business was discussed on georgewbush.com email addresses. “The use of non-government e-mails first became an issue about four weeks ago, when some of the e-mails turned over in a congressional investigation of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys showed that Rove deputy Scott Jennings repeatedly used an RNC e-mail address (sjennings@gwb43.com) in his official communications. One e-mail to Rove was sent to a kr@georgewbush.com address. Since then, it’s been pointed out that some of the e-mails released in the congressional investigation of now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff indicated that former Rove aide Susan Ralston made a point of keeping her communication with Abramoff off the White House e-mail servers, and on either her RNC or AOL e-mail accounts.” [Washington Post, 4/12/07]
Karl Rove used his private RNC account for “about 95 percent” of his work. “Alexis Simendinger writes in a National Journal story (subscription required): ‘White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have forfeited potential claims of executive privilege over the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys– if he communicated about the latter outside the White House e-mail system, using his Republican National Committee e-mail account or RNC equipment. Or at least that’s a legal possibility posed by rapidly advancing electronic technology and the evolving work habits of busy White House officials. . . . According to one former White House official familiar with Rove’s work habits, the president’s top political adviser does ‘about 95 percent’ of his e-mailing using his RNC-based account. Many White House officials, including aides in the Political Affairs Office, use the RNC account as an alternative to their official government e-mail addresses to help keep their official and political duties separate.” [Washington Post, 3/23/07]
The RNC’s policy was to erase all emails after 30 days and White House staffers were able to delete emails on their own. “Because the RNC had a policy until 2004 of erasing all e-mails on its servers after 30 days, including those by White House staffers, and because some of those staffers may have deleted e-mails on their own, the White House said it could not assure Congress that they have not violated the PRA, which requires the retention of official White House documents. The White House officials who may have broken the law include senior adviser Karl Rove, his deputies and much of their staffs.” [Time, 4/13/07]
Washington Post: “Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted” in a “brazen violation of internal White House policy.” “Countless e-mails to and from many key White House staffers have been deleted — lost to history and placed out of reach of congressional subpoenas — due to a brazen violation of internal White House policy that was allowed to continue for more than six years, the White House acknowledged yesterday. The leading culprit appears to be President Bush’s enormously influential political adviser Karl Rove, who reportedly used his Republican National Committee-provided Blackberry and e-mail accounts for most of his electronic communication.” [Washington Post, 4/12/15]
The White House acknowledged that “e-mails dealing with official government business may have been lost because they were improperly sent through private accounts.” “The White House acknowledged yesterday that e-mails dealing with official government business may have been lost because they were improperly sent through private accounts intended to be used for political activities. Democrats have been seeking such missives as part of an investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.” [Washington Post, 4/12/07]
The Bush Administration knew as early as 2002 that millions of official emails were at risk of being lost. “Top aides to President George W. Bush seemed unconcerned despite multiple warnings as early as 2002 that the White House risked losing millions of e-mails that federal law required them to preserve, according to an extensive review of records set for release Monday.” [Washington Post, 8/30/10]
The George W. Bush administration admitted it potentially lost an estimated 5 million emails. “Millions of White House e-mails may be missing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino acknowledged Friday. ‘I wouldn’t rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost,’ Perino told reporters. The administration was already facing sharp questions about whether top presidential advisers including Karl Rove improperly used Republican National Committee e-mail that the White House said later disappeared.” [CNN, 4/13/07]
22 million missing e-mails from the George W. Bush administration were recovered as a result of lawsuits filed by watchdog groups. “Computer technicians have found 22 million missing White House e-mails from the administration of President George W. Bush and the Obama administration is searching for dozens more days’ worth of potentially lost e-mail from the Bush years, according to two groups that filed suit over the failure by the Bush White House to install an electronic record keeping system. The two private groups – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the National Security Archive – said Monday they were settling the lawsuits they filed against the Executive Office of the President in 2007. It will be years before the public sees any of the recovered e-mails because they will now go through the National Archives’ process for releasing presidential and agency records. Presidential records of the Bush administration won’t be available until 2014 at the earliest.” [Associated Press, 3/18/10]
94 days of e-mail traffic was recovered by technicians. “Monday’s settlement allows for 94 days of e-mail traffic, scattered between January 2003 to April 2005, to be restored from backup tapes. Of those 94 days, 40 were picked by statistical sample; another 21 days were suggested by the White House; and the groups that filed suit picked 33 that seemed ‘historically significant,’ from the months before the invasion of Iraq to the period when the firings of U.S. attorneys were being planned.” [CNN, 12/14/09]
Time: The Bush Administration admitted “that as many as 50 of its staffers may have violated the Presidential Records Act.” “Late Tuesday, the Bush Administration admitted that in reviewing documents requested by Democrats for their investigations, it discovered that as many as 50 of its staffers may have violated the Presidential Records Act. The staffers, the White House said, were using e-mail accounts, laptops and BlackBerries provided by the Republican National Committee for official executive branch communications rather than the exclusively political work for which they were intended.” [Time, 4/13/07]
Washington Post: The White House email policy was clear that “Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff.” “When I asked Stanzel to read out loud the White House e-mail policy, it seemed clear enough to me: ‘Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff,’ says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.” [Washington Post, 4/12/15]
Washington Post: Personnel were “expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication.” “‘As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication.’ The handbook further explains: ‘The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements.’” [Washington Post, 4/12/15]
Rep. Henry Waxman: Email “exchanges ‘indicated that in some instances White House officials were using nongovernment accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of communications.” “Waxman told RNC Chairman Mike Duncan in a letter that such exchanges ‘indicated that in some instances White House officials were using nongovernment accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of communications’ that could be reviewed by congressional committees or released under the Presidential Records Act.” [LA Times, 4/9/07]
Democrats claimed White House officials “used the private accounts, set up through the Republican National Committee, in an effort to avoid normal review.” “Democrats have charged that Rove and other officials may have used the private accounts, set up through the Republican National Committee, in an effort to avoid normal review. Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision-making and deliberations. White House aides’ use of their political e-mail accounts to discuss the prosecutor firings has also fanned Democratic accusations that the actions were politically motivated.” [Washington Post, 4/12/07]
Chris Christie used two private e-mail accounts as governor and asserted executive privilege to block the release of any messages from either account. “‘When I’m president of the United States, you’ll have a right to know what your president is doing, and we have the obligation to be held accountable for what we’re doing,’ [Chris Christie] declared. Yet, back in New Jersey, the Republican governor’s administration is asserting executive privilege to block the release of any emails he may have sent to state officials from two private email accounts.” [International Business Times, 10/4/15]
Chris Christie admitted that he maintained a private email account and said that no law required state business be conducted on government email. “Christie has said he maintains a private email account and that no law requires state business be conducted on government email, emphasizing that Clinton handled sensitive information and deleted some of hers. A spokesman for Christie’s office, Kevin Roberts, acknowledged there is no published policy requiring employees exchange official email on state accounts. He noted that confidential guidance to employees on email use is clear and thorough relating to generally using state-issued email accounts.” [The Hill, 8/28/15]
Chris Christie administration emails and texts released during Bridgegate investigation “revealed…that state officials use personal e-mail accounts and cell phones to communicate.” “The thousands of e-mails and texts released as part of the investigation into the September lane closures on the bridge revealed what many open public records advocates have long suspected: that state officials use personal e-mail accounts and cell phones to communicate.” [Star-Ledger, 1/13/14]
The ACLU called on Chris Christie to require all state employees to use state email for business. “The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today called on Gov. Chris Christie and the state attorney general to require all public employees to use government e-mail accounts and cell phones to conduct official business, in response to the unfolding George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal. The group said in a letter that the release of thousands of pages of e-mails and text message Friday related to the scandal showed government employees are attempting to circumvent the state Open Public Records Act by using personal accounts to discuss official matters.” [Star-Ledger, 1/13/14]
The ACLU believed that Christie administration officials “could be attempting to circumvent the state open public records act by using personal accounts to discuss business.” “In a letter to Gov. Chris Christie, the state attorney general and several state lawmakers, the ACLU said the communications showed employees could be attempting to circumvent the state Open Public Records Act by using personal accounts to discuss business.” [Star-Ledger, 1/13/14]
Chris Christie’s administration spent $441,000 in legal fees fighting open records requests, including requests related to withheld Bridgegate e-mails. “When a judge determines that the state withheld records illegally—which happens frequently—her group wins legal fees. As of September 2014, Christie’s administration had paid $441,000 to North Jersey Media Group and other media outlets for records. […] In January 2014, a judge ordered the release of top Christie staffers’ communications about the George Washington Bridge lane closures. Reporters for the Record had previously requested some of those same communications in 2013, and the state released some records in response. But reading the new documents, they realized that Christie’s office had failed to turn over critical documents that were covered by their request. The outlet sued and won access to a limited number of additional emails, says Borg, the North Jersey Media Group lawyer. ‘It’s still the most egregious of these cases,’ she says.” [Mother Jones, 2/4/15]
A legislative report showed that there were 12 text messages exchanged between Chris Christie and Regina Egea on day the Port Authority started to question the Christie administration’s explanation for lane closures. “Contradicting sworn testimony and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s repeated accounts that he barely paid attention last fall to the burgeoning scandal surrounding politically-motivated lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, a new report shows there were 12 text messages exchanged between the Governor and a top aide during an explosive day of testimony a year ago. That was the day that top officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey began to dismantle key elements of the Christie administration’s official explanation of events — that the lane closures were a traffic study gone awry. AT&T did not release the content of the texts, and it’s not unusual that the Governor and the aide would have been exchanging messages that day with the aide, Regina Egea, his incoming chief of staff and head of his authorities unit, who was monitoring the testimony. But their previous denials raises the question of what other communications were deleted as the scandal unfolded.” [WNYC, 12/5/14]
Star-Ledger editorial board: Chris Christie “knowingly deleted 12 text messages he exchanged with a senior aide who was monitoring the Bridgegate hearings.” “For Christie to lead the charge on this takes remarkable chutzpah. He knowingly deleted 12 text messages he exchanged with a senior aide who was monitoring the Bridgegate hearings in December 2013, as Port Authority witnesses demolished the phony claim that the infamous lane closures were part of a traffic study. What was in those texts, governor? And why did you erase them?” [Star-Ledger editorial, 9/2/15]
Star-Ledger editorial board: Chris Christie “never answered the question” when asked about his deleted Bridgegate text messages. “What was in those texts, governor? And why did you erase them? Wallace, to his credit, asked Christie about that on Sunday. The governor pivoted back to Hillary, and never answered the question.” [Star-Ledger editorial, 9/2/15]
]]>Shot:
Trey Gowdy: “The email is a very small part of what we’re doing.” “‘Before the email story happened, nobody really paid a lot of attention to our committee,’ Gowdy said. ‘It wasn’t in the news. I get why people are interested in that. But the email is a very small part of what we’re doing. In fact, if it doesn’t relate to Libya or Benghazi emails, it’s no part of our committee.’” [The State, 10/1/15]
Chaser:
Public statements of the Benghazi Committee since March 2015:
