Category Archives: Hillary Clinton email

A Private Computer System at State for Hillary?

Posted on by

Okay, it is coming out at a furious speed, so Bernie Sanders will enjoy this or will it be Biden or Bloomberg that are dancing? Where is lil’ Debbie Wasserman Schultz these days? Oh how about Barack, Huma, Cheryl, or Sid viscous or Cody? Tyler Drumheller is dead….but the Hillary clandestine network had huge discussions at the State Department to the point of issuing her own system. The problem is Hillary did not know how to use a computer, so that flippant statement about wiping a server with a cloth as I have said before was in fact innocent, she has no clue. Calling Brian Pagliano, call holding on line 3. What about all those mobile devices? What about all the hardcopies that Hillary asked to have digital communications printed for her?

Plans For Hidden IT Network To Help Clinton Skirt Rules Uncovered by Judicial Watch

‘We should … set up a stand-alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connected to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it recently received records from the Department of State disclosing plans by senior State Department officials to set up a “stand-alone PC” so that Clinton could  check her emails in an office “across the hall” through a separate, non-State Department computer network system. Referencing the special Clinton computer system, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, writes Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, “The stand-alone separate network PC is a great idea.”  The emails are from January 23-24, 2009, a few days after Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State.

The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch in response a court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for State Department records about Hillary Clinton’s separate email system  (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00689)).

In the email chain, Lewis Lukens, former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the secretariat, responds to a request from Mills by informing her, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and Kennedy that the new personal computer “in the secretary’s office” would be “connected to the internet (but not through our system).” Abedin responds, “We are hoping for that if possible.”

The email exchange discussing plans to provide Clinton a separate computer to skirt the internal State Department computer network begins with a message from Mills to Lukens in which she requests Clinton being able to access her emails through “a non-DOS computer.” The email discusses how the stand-alone computer can be set up and why it is “a great idea’ and “the best solution:”

From: Cheryl Mills
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:45 AM
To: Lukens, Lewis A
Subject: Re: Series of questions

Lew – who can I talk to about:

  1. Can our email be accessed remotely through the web using a non-DOS computer like my laptop?
  2. I am traveling to the M-E – will my DOS bb work there and is there a cell phone attached?
  3. Spoke to Dan [Daniel B. Smith, former DOS executive secretary] re: bb for HRC (and reports that POTUS is able to use a super encrypted one which)
  4. Spoke to Dan re: setting up Counselor office for HRC so she can go across hall regularly to check her email

***

From: Lukens, Lewis A
To: cmills [REDACTED]
Cc: Habedin [REDACTED]; Kennedy, Patrick F; Smith, Daniel B
Sent: Saturday, Jan. 24, 19:10:33 2009
Subject: Re: series of questions

We have already started checking into the NSA bb. Will set up the office across the hall as requested. Also, I think we should go ahead (but will await your green light) and set up a stand-alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connect to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk. Lew.

From: Kennedy, Patrick F [email protected]
To: Lukens, Lewis A <[email protected]>; Cheryl Mills
Cc: Huma Abedin; Smith, Daniel B <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Jan 24 19:48:25 2009
Subject: Re: Series of questions

Cheryl

The stand-alone separate network PC is [a] great idea

Regards

Pat

From: Huma Abedin
To: Kennedy, Patrick F; Lukens, Lewis A; Cheryl Mills
Cc: Huma Abedin; Smith, Daniel B
Sent: Sat Jan 24 19:48:27 2009
Subject: Re: Series of questions

Yes we were hoping for that if possible so she can check her email in her office.

***

From: Lukens, Lewis A
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:26 PM
To: Kennedy, Patrick F
Subject: Re: Series of questions

I talked to Cheryl about this. She says a problem is hrc does not know how to use a computer to do email – only bb [Blackberry]. But, I said would not take much training to get her up to speed.

In separate litigation, the State Department told Judicial Watch and federal courts that Hillary Clinton was never issued secure State Department computing devices.

“These emails are shocking.  They show the Obama State Department’s plan to set up non-government computers and a computer network for Hillary Clinton to bypass the State Department network,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That these records were withheld from the American people until now is scandalous and shows the criminal probe of Hillary Clinton’s email system should include current and former officials of the Obama administration.”

Judicial Watch filed these new emails with U.S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is now considering whether to grant discovery in a lawsuit seeking information on the “special government employee” status of Abedin. In its filing, Judicial Watch states:

[Judicial Watch] just recently received additional evidence that demonstrates that senior management at the State Department was well aware that Mrs. Clinton was using a “non-state.gov” system to conduct official government business. This evidence also shows that the senior management at the State Department knowingly aided Mrs. Clinton in establishing and using a “non-state.gov” system.

***

[T]his newly discovered email demonstrates that there is at least a “reasonable suspicion” that the State Department and Mrs. Clinton deliberately thwarted FOIA by creating, using, and concealing the “clintonemail.com” record system for six years.

Govt Employees Concerned About Cyber Intrusions, Hillary?

Posted on by

Not nearly enough when every government employee is not fretting over cyber espionage most of all those at the State Department.

Nearly 9 in 10 Government Employees Concerned about Cyber Breaches in Their Organization

 

The public sector experienced nearly 50 times more cyber incidents than any other industry in 2014, and government agencies consistently cite implementing robust, agile cybersecurity measures as a top priority. As threats continue to evolve in both scale and capacity, it is increasingly essential that organizations devise and implement robust, agile measures to continuously detect, monitor, and address both external and internal vulnerabilities.

In an effort to learn more about the perspective of public sector employees on cybersecurity, Government Business Council conducted a flash poll on the following question:

GBC received responses from 160 federal, state, and local government employees. Nearly 90% stated that they were concerned or very concerned about the impact of cyber attacks; only 5% were not very concerned or not at all concerned about potential breaches. The results also reveal cybersecurity to be a more pressing concern for state and local organizations than for their federal counterparts: 96% of state and local respondents were concerned or very concerned about breaches, a 13-point difference from the percentage of federal employees expressing a similar level of concern.

Lack of resources might make cybersecurity a more pressing issue for state organizations — according to a 2015 survey of state CIOs, 64% cited insufficient funding as a major barrier against addressing cyber threats, and 62% cited inadequate availability of security professionals. There is also a disconnect between perception of state cybersecurity capabilities and reality: while 60% of state officials had a high level of confidence in the ability of states to defend against attacks, only a quarter of state CISOs responded likewise.

Moving forward, state and federal agencies should continue to invest in developing a cohesive cybersecurity strategy, recruiting and retaining personnel with the relevant skill set, and sharing threat information and best practices across organization. As federal CIO Tony Scott puts it, “Cyber threats cannot be eliminated entirely, but they can be managed much more effectively. And we can best do this by aligning and focusing our efforts, by properly funding necessary cyber investments, by building strong partnerships across government and industry, and by drawing on the best ideas and talent from across the country to tackle this quintessential problem of the 21st century.” GBC will revisit this topic in future research posts.

‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying

NYPost: The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal emails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency email address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.

“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.

The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov email address like previous secretaries.

“That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,” Krongard said in an exclusive interview. “How else was she supposed to do business without email?”

He also points to the unusual absence of a permanent inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. He said the 5½-year vacancy was unprecedented. Much more to Sperry’s summary is here.

What do the former military special forces have to say on the matter of Hillary and even some betrayal within their own ranks?

Sofrep: A source within the State Department confirmed with SOFREP back in 2012 that Hillary’s top aid within the department pre-interviewed people regarding Benghazi before they were interviewed by the State Department’s own internal Benghazi Accountability Review Board.

The problem with the State Department investigating itself is that the investigation produced no significant change in the dysfunctional leadership, nor did it hold people accountable for clear negligence (the top three at fault being Hillary Clinton, Charlene Lamb, and Patrick Kennedy). The organization continues to rot from the top down.

Hillary, in particular, shares something in common with former Navy SEAL Team 6 member Matt Bissonette: They both potentially disclosed top secret government information, a clear violation of her non-disclosure agreement and oath. They also share pending legal problems with the feds.

The federal government continues to aggressively pursue Bissonette and anyone associated with him for disclosures in his book “No Easy Day” and for new information found on his personal computer that Bissonette turned over to federal investigators. SOFREP knows of at least one additional active-duty member forced to retire early as a result of information found on Bissonette’s laptop. Will the same measure of justice and accountability be applied to the political celebrity and former Secretary of State Clinton?

In a recent New York Times article, the editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton as an experienced presidential candidate.

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration. -NY Times editorial board 

Hillary leveraged her political star power to secure her position as secretary of state, a clear Democrat concession prize for losing to Obama last time around. It was likely her strategic plan to further build her resume, and wait things out until 2016. She did little to promote American diplomacy or secure global stability abroad (two pillars of the department’s mission statement).

This is a woman that will do and say anything to get what she wants. I have very little respect for her. I know what she said to me and she can say all day long that she didn’t say it. That’s her cross to bear. She knows that she knew what happened that day, and she wasn’t truthful, and that has come out in the last hearings — that she told her family one thing and was telling the public another thing. —Sister of fallen hero Glen Doherty, Kate Quigley  Full article and video is here.

 

Hillary’s Email Contained Operational Intel/Detail

Posted on by

Official: Withheld Clinton emails contain ‘operational’ intel, put lives at risk

Herridge/FNC: EXCLUSIVE: Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

 From Observer: (  CIA Officers names (including NOCs) in Hillary emails. Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.)

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.

The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.

The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time — from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.

“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”

Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.

“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.

“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said.

Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked … including oral communications.”

Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”

But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.

“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you … you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”

These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.

“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.

Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.

Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit — and first reported by Fox News — suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is … [one] great idea.”

“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,”  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.

*** What is additionally terrifying is John Kerry not only emailed Hillary on his unprotected iPad but Kerry further admits that foreign espionage and intelligence services also likely hack and or found a way to intrude on Hillary’s server and emails along with any of those inside the State Department. Even Germany tapped John Kerry’s cell phone.

CNN: Hillary, Republicans are not her Problem, the FBI is

Posted on by

NYT Reporter: Clinton’s Problem is the FBI, Not Republicans

FreeBeacon: New York Times reporter Peter Baker rebuked Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric over the weekend about Republicans politicizing her private email scandal, suggesting on CNN Sunday that it was the FBI that should be really on Clinton’s mind.

The Obama administration announced Friday it could not release 22 of Clinton’s emails from her private server because they were top-secret, while Clinton maintained her line that those emails were not marked classified when they were sent or received, a statement columnist Ron Fournier remarked was “irrelevant.” The Washington Free Beacon reported Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement laying out criminal penalties for any mishandling of classified information as secretary of state.

“I take classified information really seriously,” Clinton said on Saturday. “I just think that if the Republicans want to use this for political purposes, that’s their decision.”

King pointed out this was an Obama administration decision, and MSNBC legal correspondent Ari Melber noted on Friday that the administration has prosecuted people for mishandling classified material. Also, the Inspector General of the intelligence community is not a Republican appointee.

“Her problem at this point is not the Republicans,” Baker said. “Her problem is the FBI and the Obama Justice Department. What Democrats are quietly, absolutely petrified about is that come summer, you find an indictment of people around her, of her, a request for a special prosecutor, something that just basically turns this into a complete disaster for the Democrats in which it’s too late to change horses.”

***

Those who came before Hillary and her willful decisions on classified material and lying about it, in part from the WashingtonTimes:

JOHN DEUTCH

Deutch was CIA director from May 1995 until December 1996. He came under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland.

An internal CIA investigation found that he stored and processed hundreds of files of highly classified material on unprotected home computers that he and family members also used to connect to the Internet, making the information potentially vulnerable to hackers.

A report by the Defense Department inspector general found that Deutch had failed to follow “the most basic security precautions” and faulted him for rejecting Pentagon requests that security systems be installed on his home computers.

Deutch apologized for his actions and was pardoned by President Bill Clinton before the Justice Department could file a misdemeanor plea deal for mishandling government secrets.

SANDY BERGER

Berger was the national security adviser during Bill Clinton’s second term. After leaving office, he found himself in trouble for destroying classified documents.

Berger, who died in December at age 70, pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it. The materials related to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, and though he avoided prison time, he lost access to classified material for three years.

A judge fined him $50,000, higher than the amount recommended by prosecutors.

Berger called his actions a lapse in judgment that came as he was preparing to testify before the Sept. 11 commission that examined the events leading up to the 2001 attacks.

“I let considerations of personal convenience override clear rules of handling classified material,” he said at the time.

BRYAN NISHIMURA

Nishimura, a former Naval reservist in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 and a regional engineer for the U.S. military, was investigated for downloading and storing classified information on his personal electronic devices.

Prosecutors say he carried the materials with him off-base in Afghanistan and took classified Army records to his home in Folsom, California, after his deployment ended.

His lawyer, William Portanova, said Nishimura never intended to break the law but was a “pack rat” who thought nothing of warehousing Army records at home alongside personal belongings.

FBI agents who searched his home found classified military records, both in hard copy and digital form. Nishimura also admitted to investigators that he had destroyed some of the information.

Nishimura pleaded guilty in July to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. A judge fined him $7,500, and he was ordered to surrender his security clearance.

The violation was a technical and unintentional one, Portanova said, but one that the Justice Department nonetheless thought it needed to punish “to make its point.”

DAVID PETRAEUS

The best-known recent prosecution involves the former CIA director who pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor count of unlawful removal and retention of classified materials. He was spared prison as part of his plea and was given two years’ probation by a judge who faulted him for a “serious lapse in judgment.”

The retired four-star Army general admitted that he loaned his biographer, Paula Broadwell, with whom he was having an affair, eight binders containing highly classified information regarding war strategy, intelligence capabilities and identities of covert officers. FBI agents seized the binders from an unlocked desk drawer at his home, instead of a secure facility that’s required for handling classified material.

One critical distinction is that while Clinton has repeatedly said she didn’t send or receive anything that was classified at the time – something the State Department now says it’s investigating – the Petraeus plea deal makes clear that he knew the information he provided was classified. He told Broadwell in a recording revealed by prosecutors that the binders had “code-word stuff in there.”

When questioned by the FBI, he denied having given Broadwell classified information, though he avoided being charged with making a false statement.

 

John Kerry Sent Classified Material via iPad to Hillary

Posted on by

Quietly, this past Friday, January 29, the State Department did release some emails that you are invited to harvest. Here is that link.

Ever wonder where John Kerry has been with regard to Hillary’s emails? After all, he heads the State Department that is tasked with sorting, reviewing, classifying and posting Hillary’s emails? Ever wonder when and if they are going to search personal property including homes for printed material? In fairness, the intelligence community and the FBI assigned this expensive task of Hillary’s emails and server (the whole expense of which she should personally pay for) is quite concerned to determine all the compromised conditions by foreign espionage and intelligence operations. Further, another area for real concern, is the Clinton Global Foundation which appears to be in full violation of IRS ‘foundation’ law a matter that will require a separate huge investigation, that is IF the IRS well….heh would even cooperate legitimately.

Then there is Sidney Blumenthal and those emails.

State Dept. Records Show John Kerry Sent Hillary A ‘SECRET’ Email From His iPad

 Ross/DailyCaller: Emails released by the State Department on Friday show that in 2011, then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry sent then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton an email from his iPad that has been deemed to contain information classified as “Secret.”While previous releases of Clinton’s emails have shown that she and her staff communicated directly with Kerry when he was a senator, the new email is the first from Kerry that the State Department has determined contains sensitive information.

Kerry has largely been silent throughout the Clinton email controversy. He has sent letters asking the State Department’s inspector general to review the agency’s records keeping practices, but he has not publicly criticized Clinton for exclusively using a personal email account and a home-brew email server.

Perhaps now we know why.

In the heavily-redacted email, dated May 19, 2011, Kerry, who then chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, appears to be discussing negotiations between India and Pakistan. Besides Clinton, the email was sent to Tom Donilon, who then served as President Obama’s National Security Advisor.

kerryemail

Clinton forwarded the email to an aide, instructing her to “Pls print” the document.

The redactions in the email are listed under the Freedom of Information Act exemptions 1.4(b) and 1.4(d), which are categories reserved for information gleaned from foreign government sources.

The kicker is that Kerry sent Clinton the information from his iPad, a communications device that would have been much more vulnerable to hackers than an encrypted communications system.

According to the Republican National Committee, which flagged the Kerry email in an email to reporters, the batch of Clinton records released on Friday contained 11 emails that the State Department now says contain “Secret” information. That’s more than double the number of emails that contained similarly classified information released in all of the previous releases combined.

According to the RNC’s calculations, 243 emails released Friday were classified at some level, bringing the overall number of classified Clinton emails to 1,583. The State Department also announced Friday that it is withholding in full and into perpetuity 22 emails that contain “Top Secret” information — the highest classification category.

The State Department says it is uncertain whether the information in those emails was classified at the time they were originated. The Intelligence Community’s inspector general has said that two separate Clinton emails were contained information that was “Top Secret” when sent. That distinction is crucial because Clinton has maintained that none of the classified emails found on her server were classified when created.

As Clinton’s successor at the State Department, Kerry has overseen the release of the work-related emails that the Democratic presidential candidate handed over in Dec. 2014. But the Democrat and his agency have been criticized by many for appearing to side with Clinton in a battle with the intelligence community over the classification status of many of her emails.

During a press conference in Canada on Friday, Kerry declined to comment on the news that the State Department was acknowledging that 22 of Clinton’s emails contain “Top Secret” information.

“I can’t speak to the specifics of anything with respect to the technicalities, the contents … because that’s not our job,” he said, according to Reuters. “We don’t know about it, it’s in other hands.”

He was not asked about his sensitive communications with Clinton.

Another question Kerry hasn’t answered is why, since he knew that Clinton used a personal email account while at the State Department, he failed to demand that she turn her emails over to the State Department until autumn 2014 after agency lawyers uncovered Clinton’s email address while reviewing documents related to the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation.

It is unclear if Kerry knew about Clinton’s use of a private server, though other high-ranking State Department officials likely did. Emails obtained by The Daily Caller earlier this month show that Patrick Kennedy, the under secretary of management, was on an email chain in which Clinton’s server was being discussed.

***

It is quite likely that Barack Obama will apply ‘executive privilege’ to both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. It can be challenged in court as was the case for the Fast and Furious documents and Eric Holder. This month, however a judge did rule that those Fast and Furious documents must be turned over the Congress.

When it comes to the definition of ‘executive privilege’ here is a short summary:

 

So what is executive privilege?

The president can invoke executive privilege in order to withhold some internal executive branch communications from the other branches of government. The privilege is based on the separation of powers between the branches.

Executive privilege has been invoked since the U.S.’s early days but isn’t in the Constitution. It was only in 1974, when Richard Nixon tried to prevent the release of White House tapes during the Watergate investigation, that the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, and set some parameters for it. The Court ruled that no claim on executive privilege is absolute, and can also be overcome if evidence is needed in a criminal trial. (For a full legal history, see this report from the Congressional Research Service.)

So what does it usually cover?

Various administrations have set their own policies as to when they can invoke the privilege. (The Washington Post has a handy timeline showing when presidents have used it.)

Bill Clinton used them a lot, 14 times during his presidency. In 1998, his attempt to keep White House aides from testifying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal was struck down, the first time since Nixon that executive privilege was overruled in court. George W. Bush invoked the privilege six times, not always successfully.

Legal challenges have established two general categories of executive privilege: presidential communications and deliberative process.

The presidential communications privilege applies to communications involving the president or his staff that immediately pertain to the president’s decision-making process. The idea, according to Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University, and author of a book on executive privilege, is that “the president should have the right to candid advice without fear of public disclosure.”

Deliberative process involves a broader scope of executive branch activity: discussions involving White House staff or within other agencies on legal or policy decisions that don’t necessarily involve the president or his immediate advisers. Again, the argument is that government officials need to feel like they can talk honestly. The deliberative process privilege, Rozell says, is generally easier to challenge than a claim of presidential communications privilege.