Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing

Following a trail, I found that The FBI has Pagliano's computer.

Link to Charles Grassley letter to State Department.

www.politico.com...

So, rest assured I think there was a nice little trail.

Also, several email addies were hacked by Wikileaks, and
while it against the T&C here to link to them, the FBI
can read all of it without consequence.

This maybe why Wikileaks claims it can take Hillary down.

Also, the FBI will have a copy of the missing email from Guccifer.

They interviewed him for 80 minutes on the plane over from Romania.
He claims he had stashes on Google cloud. While no one can
release that to the public, again the FBI can access it.

Deception experts say his story about hacking Clinton's email is true.
lawnewz.com...

If he is already charged, dishing on Clinton can only be a plus for him.

Addiing to his credibility is three of the four emails that the posted that
started this whole investigation, they match the State Department emails
exactly.

foia.state.gov...

foia.state.gov...

foia.state.gov...

These emails are from Sidney Bluementhal. The Fourth one has information that
the Saudi's financed the 9/11 Benghazi attack. I can imagine Hillary would have
tried to hide that, as the donations flowed to The Clinton Foundation.

www.anonews.co...



www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

Anything after Clinton left office would not be part of the current investigation. So they would be available. Why would they withhold emails that had nothing to do with her time as SoS?

I would think all Clinton/Pagliano email exchanges would be of interest, considering their relationship.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

Anything after Clinton left office would not be part of the current investigation. So they would be available. Why would they withhold emails that had nothing to do with her time as SoS?

I would think all Clinton/Pagliano email exchanges would be of interest, considering their relationship.

I can agree to a certain extent, but what matters is that within the OP's source it does explain that the requested information does exist, but it has not been cleared through the proper procedures to be released.

So it does not "appear to be missing", as they claim. It appears that we are impatient and have to wait for the proper procedures to take place.

a reply to: introvert

They may have been discussing future "strategies".

Like cover-ups and so on and so forth.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

They may have been discussing future "strategies".

Like cover-ups and so on and so forth.

They are available.

Submit a FOIA request and find out.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

They may have been discussing future "strategies".

Like cover-ups and so on and so forth.

They are available.

Submit a FOIA request and find out.

Thank You Dauktor, I might do that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

............and her noose gets tighter.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: IAMTAT

............and her noose gets tighter.

I am waiting for her goose to get cooked-er.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: IAMTAT

............and her noose gets tighter.

I am waiting for her goose to get cooked-er.

Well at least she has an advantage. Guys go into the WH young looking and leave old, grey, and haggard. She's already there.

She'll go in looking like this.



.... and leave looking like this



It'll be like staring at an old catcher's mitt for eight years.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: IAMTAT

............and her noose gets tighter.

Not making a pro-HRC statement here...but only interjecting a competitive reality to the Inquisitor article in the OP..

May 6th, 2016

Per CNN, “The interviews, we’re told, are focused on whether classified information was mishandled, and the security of the server. So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation, but, again, the investigation is not over.”

realtimepolitics.com...

I expect some trolly, emotional responses from some in the thread...so I will leave the above for your own interpretation and digestion and exit the thread promptly...

I do believe objective thinking is healthy though...

Clinton claims she has been available for an interview with the FBI
since last August...yet they have not scheduled one with her yet.

She may think she is really smart in the way she tried to keep
her server from them, or think its cute that someone deleted
Pagliano's emails. I bet nearly everyone who reads this story
thinks Hillary is someway responsible for that.

Watch her numbers tumble again.

And...Its looking 100% that she is the Target of the FBI investigation.

a reply to: burntheships

She played word games and lied when she said the FBI hadn't contacted her.
The FBI has been in contact with her lawyers.
Same thing...but her version makes her seem like the FBI isn't interested in her...when they obviously are...and have been.

a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, let's look at it objectively. From the OP source:

“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”

Objectively, don't you think it strange that no emails were exchanged with this particular staffer who worked directly for Hillary, setting up her personal server? I have a much lower level job than this and me and my boss exchange at least a half dozen emails........per day.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, let's look at it objectively. From the OP source:

“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”

Objectively, don't you think it strange that no emails were exchanged with this particular staffer who worked directly for Hillary, setting up her personal server? I have a much lower level job than this and me and my boss exchange at least a half dozen emails........per day.

Objectively? I think it needs to be answered, but I think the answer is mundane and not strange. I have a couple of people handling my business email servers and virtually no communications from them on those servers..

Mostly cuz when I reach out to them, my server is down and I am sending from a personal email asking WTF..or most often calling and asking WTF.

They did cite an email from this guy on Hillarys personal email address where he wished her a Happy Birthday and that makes sense.

He is the IT guy that set up her server...I don't see what a good reason would be for him to communicate via an email that he clearly knew was dedicated to her professional business? If he had something to say he could send to her personal address.

Objectively?...It's got be answered and the FBI looks like they are getting that done, likely asked him to turn over his personal email correspondence with Hillary and his outgoing messages after he was granted immunity...cuz he is scared as hell to be dragged into a very big national spotlight...

But honestly...no..I don't see reason for the IT guy to be starting email threads on her work server.

It's part of the investigation..and should be followed up on..but no, I don't see anything coming from it.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, let's look at it objectively. From the OP source:

“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”

Objectively, don't you think it strange that no emails were exchanged with this particular staffer who worked directly for Hillary, setting up her personal server? I have a much lower level job than this and me and my boss exchange at least a half dozen emails........per day.

But honestly...no..I don't see reason for the IT guy to be starting email threads on her work server.

It's part of the investigation..and should be followed up on..but no, I don't see anything coming from it.

Whew. Then he should be relieved then that none of his emails were among the 30,000 Hillary deleted.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, let's look at it objectively. From the OP source:

“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”

Objectively, don't you think it strange that no emails were exchanged with this particular staffer who worked directly for Hillary, setting up her personal server? I have a much lower level job than this and me and my boss exchange at least a half dozen emails........per day.

But honestly...no..I don't see reason for the IT guy to be starting email threads on her work server.

It's part of the investigation..and should be followed up on..but no, I don't see anything coming from it.

Whew. Then he should be relieved then that none of his emails were among the 30,000 Hillary deleted.

I don't understand what you are getting at. If you meant it sincerely when you asked me "objectively"...lets do that and say what we mean and not hide behind half-statements and innuendo. Otherwise I am not interested.

What are you saying or getting at?

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Indigo5

Ok, let's look at it objectively. From the OP source:

“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”

Objectively, don't you think it strange that no emails were exchanged with this particular staffer who worked directly for Hillary, setting up her personal server? I have a much lower level job than this and me and my boss exchange at least a half dozen emails........per day.

Especially when Hillary has been playing it up that she is a doddering old grandma with zero tech savvy.
One would think that she would have had at least a few questions for the person that she hand picked (and pushed to have him hired) for that job.

Hillary Rakes in Nearly $75,000 From Justice Department Employees

Clinton collected $73,437 from individuals who listed the “Department of Justice” as their employer. Twelve of the 228 contributions were for $2,700, the maximum individual amount allowed by law.

The fundraising haul marks a dramatic increase over Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential run in 2008, when she took in 23 contributions totaling $15,930 from employees at the agency, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

David Bossie, president of the watchdog group Citizens United, told the Washington Free Beacon he is not surprised by the donations, and renewed his call for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.

“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” Bossie said in a statement to the Free Beacon. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.”

“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security,” he continued. “This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Wait, wait, wait...

You're telling me that employees at the Department of Justice have donated money (many the largest amount legally possible) to a person they were in charge of (it's the FBI's ballgame now folks) investigating?

How is this not a conflict of interest?

And didn't I ask that about something else Hillary-related not that long ago?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Same thing...but her version makes her seem like the FBI isn't interested in her...when they obviously are...and have been.

Yes, exactly.
Reading some expert opinions, if she is the Target, she'll
be called up on the end.

Read today that as the FBI was questioning Mills, they went a
little further than they had agreed to.