>>16317693 pb
About Patrick Kennedy
March, 2015: Hillary Clinton told Media she and her staff (Heather Samuelson) haddeleted over 30,000 emails:
“because they were personal and private about matters that I believed were within the scope of my personal privacy.”
According to ABC:
“However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said.”
June, 18, 2019:John Hackett testified to Judicial Watchabout having a conversation withPatrick Kennedy, the Under Secretary of Management, as well as with others about FOIA rules, relative to the Clinton emails. Asked as to why he felt this was important, he said:
Well, we heard that there were 50,000 or 60,000 emails, and that they had – “they” being the Secretary’s team — had culled out 30,000 of these. And which is — so we wanted to know what criteria they used. The standard from the National Archives is very strict. If there was — if there were mixed records, that would be considered a federal record. If it was mixed personal and mentioned a discussion, that would be — under the narrow National Archives rules, it would be considered a federal record.
JW then asked him if Clinton and her attorneys handled the "mixed information, personal and official" according to the rules, to which he responded he didn't know.JW asked him if Patrick Kennedy or anyone else had asked about the rules. Hackett said Kennedy told him he would ask for them.JW asked him if Kennedy had gotten the rules, and Hackett said not while he had been at State during the years from April 2013 to March 2016. Relative to the FOIA release in 2014 to theBenghazi Committee, JW asked Hackett if he thought there had been "interference with the formal FOIA review process”, to which he replied he thought “that some bureaus were convinced, or — and analysts were convinced, once it was explained to them,to redact something but use a B5 exemption[which applies to deliberative process and allows government officials to discuss policy without the discussions being made public, or attorney client privilege] versus a B1 [national security] exemption.”JW asked Hackett if he thought this was according to procedure, to which he responded he did not, and he had stated as such to his supervisor.
https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch/status/1146096247297794048
Archived: https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-state-hackett-deposition-01242/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/newslink-hillarys-email-vindication-think-again/