Clin­ton can’t re­call de­tails about server

Kuwait Times - - INTERNATIONAL -

WASH­ING­TON: Hil­lary Clin­ton said un­der oath in a court fil­ing Thurs­day that she can’t re­call key de­tails about her use of a pri­vate email server or she re­fused to an­swer ques­tions about it posed by a con­ser­va­tive le­gal group. Clin­ton lawyer David Ken­dall pro­vided the Demo­cratic pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee’s sworn re­sponses to 25 writ­ten ques­tions sub­mit­ted by Ju­di­cial Watch. The group has filed mul­ti­ple law­suits seek­ing copies of gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments from Clin­ton’s ten­ure as sec­re­tary of state.

Clin­ton’s an­swers pro­vided no new in­for­ma­tion be­yond what she told FBI agents dur­ing the re­cently closed in­ves­ti­ga­tion into whether she and her staff mis­han­dled clas­si­fied in­for­ma­tion. In her re­sponses, Clin­ton used some vari­a­tion of “does not re­call” at least 21 times. For ex­am­ple, Clin­ton was asked when she de­cided to use her pri­vate email ac­count to con­duct gov­ern­ment busi­ness and whom she con­sulted in mak­ing that de­ci­sion.

Clin­ton said she re­called mak­ing the de­ci­sion in early 2009, but she “does not re­call any spe­cific con­sul­ta­tions re­gard­ing the de­ci­sion”. Asked whether she was warned that us­ing a pri­vate email ac­count con­flicted with fed­eral record-keep­ing rules, Clin­ton re­sponded that “she does not re­call be­ing ad­vised, cau­tioned, or warned, she does not re­call that it was ever sug­gested to her, and she does not re­call par­tic­i­pat­ing in any com­mu­ni­ca­tion, con­ver­sa­tion, or meet­ing in which it was dis­cussed.”

Ju­di­cial Watch had sought to de­pose Clin­ton in per­son about the cre­ation of the pri­vate server lo­cated in the base­ment of her New York home. In Au­gust US Dis­trict Court Judge Em­met G Sullivan in­stead or­dered the Demo­cratic pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee to re­spond to the group’s ques­tions in writ­ing. In ad­di­tion to her in­abil­ity to re­call the re­quested in­for­ma­tion, Clin­ton en­tered var­i­ous le­gal ob­jec­tions to the for­ma­tion or word­ing of 18 of the 25 ques­tions. She also filed eight sep­a­rate gen­eral ob­jec­tions to the process un­der which the ques­tions were be­ing asked.

Ju­di­cial Watch Pres­i­dent Tom Fit­ton said the group’s lawyers will closely re­view Clin­ton’s re­sponses. “Mrs Clin­ton’s re­fusal to an­swer many of the ques­tions in a clear and straight­for­ward man­ner fur­ther re­flects dis­dain for the rule of law,” Fit­ton said. Ju­di­cial Watch founder Larry Klay­man protested the process in a state­ment Thurs­day night. He said Sullivan’s de­nial of Free­dom Watch’s re­quests for an oral de­po­si­tion “clev­erly al­lowed Hil­lary Clin­ton ... to stonewall giv­ing re­spon­sive and mean­ing­ful an­swers.” Klay­man con­tin­ued, “Now, even if mo­tions to com­pel com­plete and re­spon­sive an­swers are filed, they will not be de­cided for some time, and Judge Sullivan will have run out the clock - paving the way for Hil­lary Clin­ton ... to eas­ily win the pres­i­dency.” Cam­paign spokesman Brian Fal­lon said Clin­ton has an­swered these same ques­tions in mul­ti­ple set­tings for over a year, and her an­swers Thurs­day “are en­tirely con­sis­tent with what she has said many times be­fore.”

— AFP

BURBANK, Cal­i­for­nia: Demo­cratic pres­i­den­tial nom­i­nee Hil­lary Clin­ton (left ) and TV host Ellen DeGeneres talk dur­ing a com­mer­cial break of the tap­ing of the Ellen Show on Thurs­day.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait

© PressReader. All rights reserved.