New: Clinton’s Top State Dept. IT official repeatedly takes Fifth Amendment in Clinton email lawsuit – He Lied to Congress
A retired State Department information technology official asserted his Fifth Amendment rights more than 90 times during a deposition Monday in a civil lawsuit related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according to the conservative group that brought the litigation.
When ordering the questioning of Bentel, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan noted that Bentel told the House Benghazi Committee last year that he had no recollection of being told about Clinton’s private server, but emails that have become public in the past year or so showed he was informed about issues related to the server.
“The fact that yet another State Department official took the Fifth highlights the disturbing implication that criminal acts took place related to the Clinton email and our Freedom of Information Act requests,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.
Clinton’s top techie in State Dept pleads the Fifth
John Bentel, the man who oversaw then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s technology at the State Department, refused to answer questions about his knowledge of her activities in a sworn deposition Monday, according to Judicial Watch.
Mr. Bentel had protected Mrs. Clinton during her time in office, assuring lower-level employees that her use of a secret email account had been approved, according to an inspector general’s audit.
Mr. Bentel told the congressional probe into the 2012 Benghazi attack, which exposed Mrs. Clinton’s secret email server, that he didn’t recall her server.
But the department’s inspector general found Mr. Bentel not only was aware of her secret system, but shut down two of his employees who raised concerns about it. In one case, he told one of the whistleblowers that their mission was to back Mrs. Clinton up, and “instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”
Older article from June of this year:
Ex-State Dept. Official May Have Lied To Congress About Hillary’s Email Setup
Further complicating the matter are questions from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, who has asked Bentel whether his legal expenses are being paid by Clinton or some of her associates.
Bentel, through his lawyer, Beltway veteran Randy Turk, recently refused to answer that question.
In addition to ramifications for Bentel, any false claims could have a negative impact on Clinton if Grassley’s hunch about Bentel is accurate.
The Iowa Republican has repeatedly pressed Bentel and his attorney, Beltway veteran Randy Turk, about whether the retired government official has made any arrangements with Clinton to help cover his legal costs.
As The Daily Caller has previously reported, Turk represented a White House official in the 1990s named Craig Livingstone who was implicated in the so-called “FileGate” scandal. Livingstone, who was head of White House personnel security, was accused of improperly handling FBI files of hundreds of Reagan and George W. Bush White House officials.
Livingstone was never charged in the case, but it later came to light that the Clintons helped fund his legal defense. The Clintons solicited donations from friends and allies to help pay for Turk’s services.
Old article (1997) about Randy Turk and the Clintons:
Plenty Of Questions Should Prompt Some Investigating
But there’s a journalistic corollary to that: Evasion of an answer is usually a clue to the presence of a story. Here are a half-dozen probes that meet resistance: 1. Who is paying Craig Livingstone’s legal bills, and why? The former bar bouncer reportedly hired at Hillary Clinton’s direction to oversee White House personnel security was able to amass private information on 900 Republicans from a roundheeled FBI. When newspaper stories forced Janet Reno to ask the independent counsel to investigate this invasion of privacy, Livingstone retained Randy Turk, a $400-per-hour Washington attorney previously indicated to be the Livingstone hand-holder in a White House counsel’s scandal-suppression plan.
Money from Clinton friends and Asian sources directed to Webster Hubbell raised questions of “hush money”; what about Livingstone’s legal defense fund and other upkeep? Turk refuses to answer calls about his two years of Livingstone billing or the sources of payment.
We pundits, supposedly so powerful, suffer from subpoenas envy; however, after months of badgering from media quarters, the House Oversight Committee will this week issue a subpoena for records of Livingstone’s fund. Maybe the money comes from the Former Bouncers Protective League or other innocent source; maybe Turk considers his work pro bono. But if there is nothing to hide, why hide?
Another old one. Killary uses the same defense everytime, she just doesn’t remember:
Practice To Deceive: Clinton’s Pardon ‘Process’
September 27, 1996|By William Safire, New York Times
What says Hillary?
She says she has ”no recollection” of preparing the deceitful document, although she billed her client for preparing it. She says her mind is a blank about conversations with Ward, though records show 14 calls between them throughout seven months. She destroyed her ”Ward option” file only two years after the deceitful maneuver, in what she described as ”housecleaning.”
Follow the contributors: In White House Counsel Jane Sherburne’s 12-page master plan of cover-up, high-priced lawyer Randy Turk was linked to Craig Livingstone almost two years before that former bar bouncer was found to be collecting 900 dossiers from Howard Shapiro’s eager-to-please Federal Bureau of Investigation. Who has been paying Turk, a former partner of the deputy attorney general, to protect Livingstone? A subpoena is ignored; why must contributors be kept secret?
Letter from Senator Grassley to John Bentel:
Blizzard of Lies: