The FBI is denying that any “quid pro quo” was offered in a fight between the bureau and State Department over the classification level of an email on Hillary Clinton’s private server after new documents were released Monday from the agency’s investigation.
An FBI records management official told the FBI in an interview that a member of the International Operations Division told him that Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy had reached out to have an email unclassified in exchange for a “quid pro quo,” according to the records management official, documents revealed Monday show.
In return for FBI unclassifying one of the Clinton server emails, the interviewee said as relayed by the IOD official, the State Department official offered to help station FBI agents overseas in sensitive areas.
That records management official concluded State had an “agenda” related to “minimizing” the classification issues with Clinton’s emails.
The newly released documents contain a summary of interview notes related to the FBI’s investigation into whether classified information was improperly handled while Clinton was secretary of state.
But another interview contained in the same collection said that though Kennedy reached out to FBI about declassifying the email, it was the FBI that brought up getting agents stationed in Iraq.
That FBI employee said he personally spoke with Kennedy about the email, and that he suggested he would look into it if Kennedy “would provide authority concerning the FBI’s request to increase its personnel in Iraq.”
The dispute was over an email that State determined to be unclassified, but in inter-agency review, the FBI said contained classified information.
State said the email was released in May 2015 as part of its Freedom of Information Act disclosure. The email, from November 18, 2012, was about possible arrests related to the Benghazi attacks.
Both FBI and State on Monday denied any “quid pro quo.”
“The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level,” FBI said Monday in a statement. “A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad.”
The FBI maintained the email should remain classified.
State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner called allegations of a quid pro quo “inaccurate” and said Monday that Kennedy was trying to “understand” the FBI’s decision to withhold the information.
“Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views,” Toner said. “There can be applicable FOIA exemptions that are based on both classified and unclassified rules. … We have been committed to releasing as much information to the public as possible, and ensuring that documents are withheld due to classification only when necessary to prevent damage to national security — as the Executive Order on classification calls for.”
No increase in FBI Iraq slots resulted from this conversation, Toner said.
Still, Republicans were seizing on the new interviews Monday, using them to attack Clinton.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted simply, “unbelievable.”
“These documents further demonstrate Secretary Clinton’s complete disregard for properly handling classified information,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “This is exactly why I called on (Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper to deny her access to classified information. Moreover, a senior State Department official’s attempt to pressure the FBI to hide the extent of this mishandling bears all the signs of a cover-up. This is why our aggressive oversight work in the House is so important, and it will continue.”
