State Dept. won’t fire top official in latest email scandal

The State Department rejected calls from Congress to fire a top official for his role in an apparent scheme to downplay the classified information found on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and instead accused the FBI of getting its facts wrong.

According to FBI notes released Monday, Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management at the department, offered a trade with the FBI in order to get the FBI to declassify a classified email. In return, the FBI suggested that the State Department back more FBI officials in Iraq.

The deal was never done, but the discussion of it prompted GOP lawmakers to say Kennedy needs to be fired. But spokesman Mark Toner said Monday that Kennedy wasn’t going anywhere.

“Well, that’s their prerogative, but I can say that Pat Kennedy is going to remain at his job, and he has the full confidence of the secretary of state,” he said.

Toner also dismissed the FBI notes, saying that it was “insulting” for the agency to claim that Kennedy tried to cut a deal.

“Any real assertion that this was somehow a tit-for-tat, quid pro quo exchange in that manner frankly is insulting,” he said. He also said Kennedy’s alleged attempt to pressure the FBI about the classification of emails was “simply a request … to clarify the reasoning” for marking one of the emails classified.

State Department officials eventually acceded to the FBI’s designation and the message was left as classified. The revelation that Clinton had classified material on her server contradicted the Democratic presidential candidate’s original assertions and dogged her campaign throughout the primary season.

But Toner argued that Kennedy was not trying to protect Clinton. Instead, he insisted that the FBI notes, known as 302 forms for summarizing interviews with witnesses, were incorrect.

“I’m sorry and I can speak to the fact that 302s are simply interviews conducted by the FBI,” Toner said. “I can’t speak to what his or her intentions were saying these kinds of things, but clearly expressing a personal opinion about what happened.”

Related Content