{"id":246296,"date":"2016-05-27T18:04:38","date_gmt":"2016-05-27T18:04:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=246296"},"modified":"2016-05-27T18:21:56","modified_gmt":"2016-05-27T18:21:56","slug":"first-deposition-released-clinton-email-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/first-deposition-released-clinton-email-case\/","title":{"rendered":"First Deposition Released on Clinton Email Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse<\/span><\/p>\n

U.S. Ambassador Lewis Lukens\u2019s sworn testimony in the case of Hillary Clinton\u2019s privatization of the U.S. Secretary of State\u2019s email is the first evidence to be released in the Clinton email cases, and it was published on May 26th at the website of Judicial Watch, the organization that originally brought the suit. Headlining “First Deposition Testimony from Clinton Email\u00a0Discovery Released\u201d<\/span><\/a>, it reported that:<\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Ambassador Lewis Lukens, former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department\u2019s executive secretariat.\u00a0 The transcript is available\u00a0<\/i>here<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Amb. Lukens was deposed last week as part of the\u00a0<\/i>discovery<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/a>\u00a0granted to Judicial Watch by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton\u2019s unsecured, non-government email system (<\/i>Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/a>\u00a0(No. 1:13-cv-01363)).<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Lukens is the first of seven\u00a0<\/i>depositions<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/a>\u00a0of former Clinton top aides and State Department officials that Judicial Watch has scheduled over the next four weeks.\u00a0 Also to be deposed are Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In his testimony<\/span><\/a>, Lukens described his State Department role:<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been a Foreign Service officer for\u00a027 years. I’ve served in Southern China; in the\u00a0Ivory Coast; in Sydney, Australia; in Dublin,\u00a0Ireland; in Baghdad; Vancouver, British Columbia;\u00a0Dakar, Senegal; and three tours in\u00a0Washington, D.C., as well as my current position in\u00a0San Francisco.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

While Clinton was Secretary of State, his role was heading \u201clogistics and management support\u201d and he had \u201croughly 110 employees working for me\u201d including the \u201cIRM\u201d or Information Resource Management team. Also, during his questioning, he was asked \u201cYou traveled with Mrs. Clinton on all of her foreign travel?\u201d while he was employed there, and he answered: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Representative excerpts from his testimony will be presented here:<\/span><\/p>\n

While Clinton\u2019s office was being prepared for her:<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you know if Mrs. Clinton\u00a0\u2014 if the IRM office set up an e-mail address for Mrs. Clinton?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: I don\u2019t believe they did.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you know why they didn\u2019t?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: I don\u2019t think it was asked for.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Would Mrs. Clinton have\u00a0\u2014 was it required for Mrs. Clinton to ask for an e-mail address for one to be assigned to her?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Yes.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Was it unusual\u00a0\u2014 at the time did you think it was unusual that Mrs. Clinton didn\u2019t want an e-mail address assigned to her?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: No.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Why not?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: I\u2019m not aware of former Secretaries of State having e-mail addresses on our system.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In other words: her having an e-mail address assigned to her was \u201crequired,\u201d but the custom at the U.S. Department of State was to ignore this \u2018requirement\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

(AUTHOR\u2019S NOTE: Regardless of whether violating the regulations or even the law has been ignored in the past, violations are supposed to be punished or prosecuted. Prior refusal to prosecute does not constitute legal excuse for continuing refusal to prosecute: it instead constitutes a government in which some persons who are supposedly in the service of, and who are definitely<\/i> being paid by<\/i>, the public, are, in practice, above<\/i> the regulations or even the laws \u2014 in other words, a dictatorship. However, this aspect of the questioning was not pursued.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Lukens then said that her violation on that matter was ignored and that a \u201cBB\u201d or Blackberry account was instead requested by \u201cHRC\u2019 Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lukens\u2019s notes indicated that he had asked HRC\u2019s agent, \u201cOn the BB for HRC, can we chat this morning?\u201d and \u201cI may have thought of a workaround [to evade the State Department\u2019s regulations] but need more info on her BB use.\u201d He explained during this questioning of him: \u201cSo the crux of the issue was that BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the Secretary\u2019s office suite, so the question was, how is the Secretary going to be able to check her e-mails if she\u2019s not able to have the Blackberry at her desk with her.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: And so what did you\u00a0\u2014 did you propose a solution at that point?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: So my proposal was to set up a computer on her desk, a standalone computer<\/i> [not part of the State Department\u2019s system], for her to be able to access the Internet to check her e-mails <\/i>[privatized \u2014 and therefore not subject to FOIA requests or historians\u2019 investigations].<\/span><\/p>\n

However, Clinton\u2019s agent insisted on a private computer also being set up \u201cacross the hall\u201d \u201cfor her to check her BlackBerry\u201d even though no private BlackBerry was allowed on the premises. This was to be the \u201cworkaround.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In an email, Lukens had written, and the questioner referenced it:<\/span><\/p>\n

Also think we should go ahead, but will await your green light, and set up a standalone PC in the Secretary\u2019s office connected to the Internet, but not go through our system, to enable her to check her e-mails from her desk.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

That proposal was accepted and was done. Then:<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you know if this setup would have been any different from the setup of other employees?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Yes, this would have been different.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: How would it have been different?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: My understanding is that most of the employees\u2019 computers in the State Department are connected through the State Department\u2019s OpenNet e-mail system\u00a0\u2026<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: So this would have been separate from the OpenNet system?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Correct.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

He was asked why he had proposed this solution, and he said it was \u201cFor ease of access\u201d and, \u201cas far as I knew, there was no requirement for her to be connected to our system\u201d (even though he had earlier<\/i> said that her having an email address assigned to her in the State Department\u2019s system, the OpenNet system, was \u201crequired\u201d). He said that the \u201cease of access\u201d would be because of there being \u201cfewer passwords.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

He was asked whether doing things this way was necessary in order for her to be able to access the Internet from the State Department, and he said, \u201dthe Internet is available\u201d to employees at the office, just as anywhere.<\/span><\/p>\n

He was asked about the inconvenience of the State Department\u2019s passwords system, and he said that he eliminated her need for any passwords:<\/span><\/p>\n

A: She wouldn\u2019t have had a password.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: So the computer would have just been open and be able to use without going through any security features?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Correct.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Though he was paid by U.S. taxpayers, apparently his only concern was to please his superiors, whom he trusted unquestioningly despite their evident unconcern<\/i> about \u201csecurity\u201d etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

In further questioning of Mr. Lukens, it became clear that he never gave any thought to what the purpose behind the State Department\u2019s regulations was: he didn\u2019t even notice that Hillary Clinton\u2019s buddy and top aide Huma Abedin at the Department was also using only a private email account \u2014 even though he regularly had been communicating via email with her.<\/span><\/p>\n

There were many instances in the questioning, in which the U.S. Department of \u2018Justice\u2019s attorney there, Caroline Lewis Wolverton, was trying to hamper the attorney for Judicial Watch from asking questions of Mr. Lukens, such as this:<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: At any point during these conversations or during these e-mails or others did you find it unusual that Ms. Abedin was using a non-state.gov e-mail account?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Vague.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: When sending these e-mails to Ms. Abedin, did you think about the fact that they were not\u00a0\u2014 you were sending e-mails to her non-state.gov e-mail account?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Not that I recall.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Thinking about it now, do you think it\u2019s\u00a0\u2014 was it rare to send emails to State Department employees on another e-mail account but the one that was assigned by the State Department?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Vague.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Was this unusual, sending e-mail\u00a0\u2014 was it unusual for you to send emails to Ms. Abedin on a non-state.gov account?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Lack of foundation.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: During your four years, did you communicate with\u00a0\u2014 sorry, during the two years of overlap, did you communicate with Ms. Abedin by e-mail?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Yes.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Was it frequent?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Yes.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you recall\u00a0\u2014 during that time, did you recall sending e-mails to her state.gov e-mail account?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Yes.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you recall\u00a0\u2014 before receiving these exhibits, did you recall sending e-mails to a non-state.gov account?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: No.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you recall thinking at any point about where you were sending e-mails to Ms. Abedin?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: No.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you recall if Ms. Abedin ever told you what e-mail accounts to use for her?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: No.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you recall how you\u00a0\u2014 do you know how you would have received the e-mail account that was used to send these e-mails?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Lack of foundation.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Do you recall\u00a0\u2014 I\u2019ll ask the question again. Do you recall how you learned where to send these e-mails, or how you learned of the e-mail address that you used to send these e-mails?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: I must have received an e-mail from her at some point from that address.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: So this may have been an auto fill on your BlackBerry or Outlook when you were sending these?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Objection. Objection, calls for speculation.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Would this\u00a0\u2014 to ask the question again, was it most likely an auto fill feature or do you think you would have manually entered in her e-mail account to send her these e-mails?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Same objection.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MR. BEKESHA<\/i>\u00a0[representing the Questioner, but now addressing the lawyer for the \u2018Justice\u2019 Department]: Are you instructing the witness not to answer?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: No.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Would you like me to repeat the question?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: Yes, please.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Would this\u00a0\u2014 would you have sent these e-mails using this e-mail address because of an auto fill feature on a piece of computer equipment or because you would have manually typed in her e-mail address?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

MS. WOLVERTON: Same objection.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

A: I would say because of the auto fill feature<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of\u00a0 They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of<\/span> \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse U.S. Ambassador Lewis Lukens\u2019s sworn testimony in the case of Hillary Clinton\u2019s privatization of the U.S. Secretary of State\u2019s email is the first evidence to be released in the Clinton email cases, and it was published on May 26th at the website of Judicial Watch, the organization that originally brought the suit. Headlining […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":246298,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[115,30,535,698,907,59,1017,753,804,524,754,92,51,523,49,76,40,1024],"class_list":{"0":"post-246296","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news","8":"tag-barack-obama","9":"tag-big-brother","10":"tag-global-news","11":"tag-hillary-clinton","12":"tag-isis","13":"tag-military","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-police-state","16":"tag-politics-2","17":"tag-russia","18":"tag-syria","19":"tag-terrorism","20":"tag-torture","21":"tag-ukraine","22":"tag-usa-news","23":"tag-warfare","24":"tag-white-house","25":"tag-ww3"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246296\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/246298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}