The timing of today's IG report

[paulthompson]

I wanted to point out something about the timing of today's inspector general (IG) report that you may have missed.

Two days from now, Judicial Watch gets to depose Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff. Which means they'll be interviewing her under oath for up to seven hours. Mills, along with Clinton and Clinton's aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, didn't cooperate with the IG report that came out today.

What that means is that I'm sure Judicial Watch saw the front page headlines and added more questions to ask Mills based on the latest revelations in today's report. So Mills will essentially be forced to answer the questions the IG would have wanted to ask her, and under oath, no less. Judical Watch then has the right to release the video of the deposition after it gets cleared and possibly edited by the State Department to make sure no classified information gets revealed. Another State Department official (Lewis Lukens) was deposed last Wednesday and we should be seeing the video of that any day.

Now, I'm sure some people here are going to complain what an awful right wing group Judicial Watch is. But regardless of what you think of them, they're the ones who filed the Freedom of Information Act requests first that the State Department ignored, so they're the ones who get to ask the questions in the depositions. Whether you like that or not, I'm just pointing out that this is what's happening. I'm sure there will be follow up news stories next week or thereabouts when what Mills says is publicly released.

Had the IG report come out a few days later, it would have been too late to affect Mills' deposition. That makes me wonder if the IG might have had that timing in mind, so Mills would be forced to give answers after all.

And four other Clinton aides will be deposed in the next month in the same court case, including Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin and Bryan Pagliano, the IT guy who managed Clinton's private server. So all of that will keep this story in the news, regardless of what happens with the FBI investigation.

EDIT: I changed the post slightly to correct the day Mills is deposed.

[MisterP]

1. JW are derangedly partisan Scalioids, as apparently is the judge, but the orgs that would've done

this were taken over by Brock himself 2014

it's political taxidermy--the old critter looks good as new, but it's just paste and chicken wire

[panader0]

4. Didn't Clinton appoint that judge?

[paulthompson]

8. Yes

The judge in this case, Emmet Sullivan, had been promoted by both Republicans and Democrats. Here's what Wikipedia says about him:

Sullivan was appointed by President Reagan to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 3, 1984. On November 25, 1991, Sullivan was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.

[Fawke Em]

11. yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan#District_Court_service

[Bob41213]

2. I think you're wrong...

Today was the day we heard the first deposition would be released (I didn't see it yet).

According to this: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-schedule-deposition-testimony-clinton-email-lawsuit/ she's not till the 27th.

Edit: not that it changes any of your conclusions. Actually it makes it easier for them to think up questions to ask.

[paulthompson]

6. Thanks

I just edited the OP to change the date of Mills' deposition. For some reason I thought it was today instead of Friday. But as you point out, that doesn't change the gist of the OP.

[Bob41213]

7. Sorry, I don't mean to nitpick either.

[paulthompson]

10. No worries

It's good to be accurate.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. Lawyerly thinking...

... way above my station, but it IS logical.

[pmorlan1]

5. Check out this thread

Looks like they are trying to block release of the video.

Hillary Clinton aide moves to block release of deposition video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512053160

[paulthompson]

22. Interesting

Thanks. I wonder if that'll be successful. It seems hard to argue that it's fine to release her words, but not video of her saying those words.

[spin]

9. You might be right. Perhaps the IG was pissed because Hillary and her aides ...

refused to cooperate with his probe. Stonewalling might not have been the best approach for the Clinton Machine to use with the IG.

I wonder if they will use the "I don't remember" defense in the Judicial Watch depositions.

[shanti]

18. or plead the 5th

is that possible in this instance?

[spin]

21. Not being an attorney I can't say but ...

pleading the fifth would look terrible politically.

[JudyM]

23. Another interesting angle. Thanks for that thought. It does seem like quite a coincidence.

[KoKo]

12. Good Points Paul! And that they dropped this bomb in Mid-Week..instead of...

the usual Friday Night Dump where controversial news goes to die over the weekend...I thought was significant. We get more days of coverage. Now that depends on who pumps it. We all know the MSM loves to bury Clinton News....but, still the effort to expose the "Breaking Clinton E-Mail , IG Report" news in mid-week, at least shows an honest attempt to thwart the MSM.

[JudyM]

24. CNN was on it within an hour of its release this morning. Asked Jeff weaver and BarbBoxer about it.

[Barack_America]

25. This cant be buried.

I was shocked how quickly this caught fire.

It really was an astonishing rebuke.

[Samantha]

33. I was too until I read the Solicitor General said 6 Billion Dollars could not be accounted for

in State Department records starting in 2009. The post said it is believed the money went toward contracts awarded by the State Department, but copies of those contracts (if there were contracts) cannot be located.

This stunned me so much the earlier report just seemed mild (although it isn't). I just don't understand how 6 billion dollars cannot be accounted for - truly.

Sam

[sadoldgirl]

13. There is very little chance that JW will release the

video before they are sure that HRC will be the nominee. Only then
will it have the effect they look for.

[kayakjohnny]

14. Good post.

You seem judicious and selective with your postings over the years. This one is well considered and well articulated.

Thank you very much.

[DURHAM D]

15. I assume this was leaked by Senator Grassley

for pure political reasons, perhaps to assist Judicial Watch. The IG is known to be biased and is close to/worked for Grassley.

[paulthompson]

16. The IG was appointed by Obama

The IG Steve Linick was appointted by Obama. And it wasn't like he was the deputy IG and thus next in line or something. He was purely Obama's choice. And he's worked hand in hand on Clinton's emails with the Intelligence Community IG Charles McCullough, who also was appointed by Obama.

So where's the proof of any right wing bias from these two IGs? That seems based entirely on the fact that they've been critical of Clinton. But as the evidence in the report shows, there's good reason to be critical. Or are all the emails and such mentioned in the report fabricated by the IG?

Also, it's my understanding the IG's report is a public report. It's just that it came out a few days earlier due to Congress getting advanced copies. So if it was leaked by someone, that's pretty much a moot point.

[Babel_17]

19. If "everyone" has a copy it might have been best for Democrats to leak it

That way you can get your explanations in at the same time, and earn some points with the reporter.

[JudyM]

26. So that's who the 2nd IG is! DOJ's statement to the court a few weeks ago mentioned that "Inspectors

General" were preparing a referral to DOJ on the subject of Clinton's use of the private server. I was wondering which IG besides State would've been working on this since I couldn't find one listed at FBI. To me, that has been the biggest glimpse yet into what's happening with the FBI case.

Thanks for all your work, Paul, great to have you here.

[paulthompson]

30. Yes

The other IG is called the Intelligence Community IG, which means he's sort of the umbrella IG for all 18 US intelligence agencies. He and the State Department IG have issued some joint statements and reports about the Clinton email scandal.

I think it's safe to say the US intelligence agencies are really pissed off at Clinton for being negligent with highly classified information. If you want to be president, that's not a good group to be pissed at you.

[JudyM]

31. So, if those are the 2 who are working up a referral, and this report is all that has been released

by State, that would mean that there are in fact more violations coming from State... Unless they are planning to prosecute her for the contents of this report, which seems highly unlikely.

[paulthompson]

32. This is all... for now

This is all that the State Department IG has reported on for now. The news today explicitly said the FBI asked the State IG to limit the subject area of the report so as to not step on the toes of the FBI investigation. Once the FBI is done, presumably that would free up the State IG to report on more, including the content of the classified emails.

This IG and the other IG did some reporting on that already, but for many months they were only allowed to examine a random sample of 40 Clinton emails. I presume that as time has gone on they've gotten their hands on more (the full versions, not the redacted ones that have been made public).

Additionally, the State Department as a whole also started an investgation, but the FBI asked them to put that on hold too. I assume that can and will resume later.

[JudyM]

41. Ok, makes sense. So likely nothing more will come from State until the FBI issues its referral to

DOJ.

Though DOJs statement requested limitation on document production in the FOIA case because referrals were being produced by IGs. It didn't say anything about FBI... and it strikes me as a bit of an odd process for the FBI to call a complete stop to a parallel investigation rather than, say, limiting interviews or the like.

[Babel_17]

17. The timing does look interesting

Maybe someone wasn't happy about the refusal to testify? The leak helps negate any talk of the release being slow walked till after Mills testifies that might have come about. So maybe that's relevant.

[Doctor_J]

20. We're sort of a high tech, 21st century 3rd world country

There is so much corruption at the high level, on all sides, and yet we are stuck with voting for them in perpetuity. There is no selection anywhere on the ballot that will make any difference in how things are run. So glad I'm in the home stretch.

[amborin]

27. very insightful!

[deathrind]

28. Reports like this

...are not released haphazardly. Given its subject matter and potential impact on very important current events there is no aspect of the release that was not calculated.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Thank you, paulthompson! I was wondering about the timing...

...but I didn't know what to make of it. My first thought was that this IGs report was intended to soften the reality of what Clinton had done, and somehow to protect her from the FBI investigation and their report. I'm still not sure whether the Obama administration would be apt to cover up for her, or let things play out as they will--hands off--or are very angry at what she did and want her prosecuted. There is evidence for all three of these attitudes, in Obama himself and his administration.

So, basically, I didn't know what to make of the timing of this IGs report. What you have to say about it makes good sense. I also didn't know that Clinton's aides, and Clinton herself, had not cooperated with the IGs. I think you're probably right that Judicial Watch will get the testimony that they could not, and their report was likely timed to those depositions and to the news cycle.

This may NOT be evidence of an Obama attitude. It could just be the IGs themselves are pissed at the non-cooperation.

It is extraordinary--even mind-boggling--that Clinton and her chief aides as Secretary of State refused to cooperate with State Department Inspector Generals. Clinton doesn't care about the breaches of security that she may have caused; doesn't want the matter thoroughly understood and remedies enacted; just blew them off? And her aides did as well?

What it looks like is that Clinton and her aides are only interested in the process that could have criminal penalties attached--the FBI investigation. The security of the U.S. Department of State is of no concern to them!

I've also wondered at what seems like delay of the FBI report. It could be that the Obama administration is divided: Say, Obama is for hands off; AG Loretta Lynch, a Clinton ally and supporter, is trying to protect Clinton (delaying the FBI report for as long as possible, trying to convince the FBI that an indictment would be "too political&quot ; and with the FBI investigators just trying to do their job, while Director Comey tries to fend off a "Saturday Night Massacre" situation (mass resignations, internal government war).

Then there are the intelligence agencies, who may be either livid at Clinton's private, insecure server (and about agents or projects she imperiled), or--as I saw suggested by someone yesterday--were monitoring her all along, and now have all kinds of blackmail material with which to control President Clinton.

On the intelligence agencies, I favor the first motive--livid at the server. If Clinton gets away with this, without punishment, they will be unable to enforce the protection of national security secrets.

Clinton could win my vote by throwing the whole thing into the public venue, saying that national security secrets are mostly crap, that the FBI is out to get her (who wouldn't sympathize with that?), and that she used a private server because she was being spied upon by our own spying agencies!

Well, maybe not win my vote--not as long as Sanders in in the race. But I might not oppose her as much as I do. She could almost win my vote with that, if I could believe her. But I've come to the point where I don't believe a word she says. She is like TV commercials: Whatever they say is good for your, isn't.

[paulthompson]

36. Keep in mind...

Keep in mind the government is not a single-minded entity. Different parts of it are very divided. For instance, the State Department has generally been very "pro-Hillary," with their spokespeople sounding much like Clinton's spokespeople. But the State Department's inspector general office has been critical of Hillary, such as with this new report. Hillary has a lot of allies AND a lot of enemies. So figuring out how this will all play out is a challenge.

[Ichingcarpenter]

35. Doesn't this report set stage for a more scathing FBI report?

If the FBI report came in first with a report that was even more scathing report first that would likely be taken as more of FBI witch hunt so to say.

But with the State dept. releasing this softer version first it makes may for the more detailed criminal investigation report. Sets up public opinion and the media to be ready for the second report from the FBI

We know the FBI and OGI are trading what they know and talking to each other.

Just a hypothesis on the timeline.

Always a pleasure to read your thoughts and works.

[paulthompson]

37. Yeah

Yeah, I could see how you could think that. I think there will be more shoes dropping before the FBI makes their recommendations, as well. But I don't know if the timing is intentional in a bigger picture sense. It's just that a lot of wheels are in motion.

And it makes sense for the FBI to wait until some of those other shoes to drop, so they can learn more. For instance, Cheryl Mills testifying under oath for up to seven hours on Friday. I'm sure the FBI will be paying close attention to that.

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. Its a political hot potato that's for sure

for the dept of state, FBI and Justice.

I also think also that when Clinton's IE gang didn't notify anyone about what they thought was an hack, (which by law they had to), on Clinton server, upset and alarmed all three parties handling this affair.


Yeah, the Cheryl Mills interview also gonna be interesting.

For other readers Cheryl Mills also served as deputy White House Counsel for President Bill Clinton, whom she defended during his 1999 impeachment . Which makes this even more interesting.

[Vinca]

38. What an interesting observation.

I thought they were trying to bury it before a holiday weekend, but your take makes a whole lot of sense. I also didn't realize her aides refused to cooperate with the IG. This could go very bad very fast.

[randome]

40. Yes, the shadowy, secretive gnomes at the heart of government plan ever-so cunningly.

Or, how about an alternate explanation? The report was finished and someone said, "Cool. Print it out."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Peace Patriot]

42. A damning OIG report about a prez frontrunner in the middle of the primaries?

Yeah, it could be true that this is no big deal at the OIG--an agency that Clinton spat upon, scorned and ignored when she was Sec of State--and it could be true that Washington DC isn't the snakepit of the world for political power playing, egomania, corruption, greed, arrogance, hubris and driving honest people to despair, but it would be a bit naive to think so.

Naw, I think "hot potato" is a more accurate description of this OIG report than your bureaucratic "Cool. Print it out."

These two facts alone make it a matter of considerable significance to the OIG: a) that Clinton failed to appoint an IG at the State Department during the entire time she was Sec of State, and b) that Clinton and her aides blew off the OIG and Kerry's State Department in their effort to understand what Clinton did and to improve security at the State Department.

These are damning facts to every important agency within the federal government. And they show Bush junta levels of disdain for honest public servants.