Those Emails Keep On Punching

[Kathianne]

https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-hillary-clinton-exchanged-classified-emails-on-private-server-with-three-aides


<header class="article-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 1351px; margin: 0px auto; position: relative; padding: 0.6em 0px 2em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: OpenSans-Regular, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.696px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Exclusive: Hillary Clinton exchanged top secret emails on her private server with three aides
By Jason Leopold (https://news.vice.com/contributor/jason-leopold)
<time pubdate="" datetime="1469236500" class="meta-time publish-date" data-publish-date="2016-07-23 01:15:00+00:00" data-publish-date-format="MMMM D, YYYY | h:mm a" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 1em; display: block; max-width: 17em;">July 22, 2016 | 6:15 pm</time>
</header><section class="article-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 1000px; margin: 0px auto; position: relative; max-width: 62.5em; padding: 2em 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: OpenSans-Regular, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 16px; line-height: 19.696px;">Hillary Clinton exchanged nearly two-dozen top secret emails from her private server with three senior aides, the State Department revealed in documents released to VICE News late Friday.

The 22 emails were sent and received by Clinton in 2011 and 2012. Clinton discussed classified information with her deputy chief of staff, Jacob Sullivan, her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Secretary of State William Burns. A majority of the top secret emails are email chains between Sullivan and Clinton.

This is the first time the State Department has revealed the identities of the officials who exchanged classified information with Clinton through her private email server.


</section>The new disclosure by the State Department comes three days before the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Philadelphia, where Clinton will formally accept her party's nomination for president, and minutes before Clinton announced her vice presidential pick, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia.

...

[Abbey Marie]

Anyone know if the FBI looked at the emails going out from those 3 aides?

I would be very interested to know if they were forwarded on to others.

[Kathianne]

Anyone know if the FBI looked at the emails going out from those 3 aides?

I would be very interested to know if they were forwarded on to others.


Yep, I believe that is why Comey could answer in the hearing the way he did. SAPs were included. His conclusion that there was no 'intent' or that even if true needed? That I disagree with.

[Elessar]

Anyone know if the FBI looked at the emails going out from those 3 aides?

I would be very interested to know if they were forwarded on to others.

The very fact they were taken off a secure, classified network and re-transmitted
initially to an unsecure and private network is a violation of our Law.

If they were further sent off that unsecure network, then that also is a violation.
Should what was said in the OP show to be true, that is multiple violations.

[Elessar]

Sorry...could not get a link, but this is
from "The Judicial Watch" in it's entirety:

Judicial Watch Goes to Court for Hillary Clinton’s Testimony
Hillary Clinton sent three lawyers to federal court this past Monday in an effort to convince a judge that she shouldn’t have to provide testimony under oath to your Judicial Watch about why she set up and used a non-state.gov email account to conduct official business as secretary of state.
As you will recall, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had granted “discovery” (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1km-4mldldm5) to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system. Sullivan had noted at the time that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.” The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kn-4mldldm6) that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1ko-4mldldm7) because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kp-4mldldm8) (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
JW sought (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kq-4mldldm9) Hillary Clinton’s testimony a few weeks ago after my attorney colleagues deposed seven former Clinton top aides and current State Department officials, including top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kr-4mldldm0) and Huma Abedin (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1ks-4mldldm1). Judicial Watch’s legal team also took the testimony of IT official Brian Pagliano, who asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify during the Judicial Watch deposition (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kt-4mldldm2).
Judge Sullivan ordered Monday’s hearing after requiring the State Department’s and Hillary Clinton’s lawyers to respond to our request (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1ku-4mldldm3) for permission to depose Clinton; the Director of Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-CRM”) Clarence Finney; and the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel.
In the oral arguments before Judge Sullivan, Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha repeatedly put the issue in perspective:

Prior to Mrs. Clinton becoming Secretary of State, she never had FOIA obligations or federal record-keeping obligations when she was a senator, so that changed. Her legal obligations changed. And the question is: When those legal obligations changed, why did she not recognize those obligations and then change her normal course of business because of these new legal obligations that applied when she became Secretary of State?
***
The question is: Why did she not change using the system?
***
Mr. [Steven D.] Mull [Executive Secretary of the State Department] … reminded Ms. Abedin, her deputy chief of staff, that such e-mail would be subject to FOIA. The head of the IRM unit, Mr. Bentel, around the same hour, identified to other staff that it would be subject to FOIA. And then for some reason, Mrs. Clinton decided not to use a State Department e-mail account and a State Department BlackBerry.
And the question hasn’t been answered: Why did she reverse course on her decision?
*[I]**
Why – at one point we have the email where Mrs. Clinton said – she said, “This isn’t a good system.” And then later on she said, “I don’t want the personal being accessible.” And the questions: What does that mean? Did she decide not to use a State Department BlackBerry, a State Department email account, because she didn’t want the personal accessible?
Now, you could read it one way, that she didn’t want personal emails accessible, but the question then is, as Mrs. Clinton would know, personal emails are not subject to FOIA requests, so her – even if she used the State Department system, she would not – her personal e-mail would not be turned over to the public, and so that doesn’t really seem to be a concern.
Another way you could read that e-mail is that she didn’t want the personal system to be accessible. And so the question then is: What was she hiding on the system?
Previous to last week’s hearing, we submitted reply briefs (available here (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kv-4mldldm4) and here (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kw-4mldldm5)) to Judge Sullivan in response to the State Department’s (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kx-4mldldm6) and Secretary Clinton’s (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1ky-4mldldm7) oppositions to our request (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1kz-4mldldm8) for permission to depose Clinton and two other witnesses.
In our briefs we argued, among other things, that:

Secretary Clinton’s deposition is necessary to complete the record. Although certain information has become available through investigations by the Benghazi Select Committee, the FBI, and the State Department Inspector General, as well as through Plaintiff’s narrowly tailored discovery to date, significant gaps in the evidence remain. Only Secretary Clinton can fill these gaps, and she does not argue otherwise.
***

To [Judicial Watch’s] knowledge, Secretary Clinton has never testified under oath why she created and used the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business. Her only public statements on the issue are unsworn.
Judge Sullivan began the hearing with a statement about the Freedom of Information Act:

The Court takes extremely seriously the public’s right to know about the details of why Mrs. Clinton used a private server for official government business. Indeed, FOIA was designed by Congress to, “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.”
Hillary Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall tried to convince the court that his client would have nothing new to say and that, evidently, we should be satisfied with the FBI’s secret interview and the incompetent questioning of Clinton by Congress. Incredibly, Mr. Kendall referred to Clinton campaign’s website as having the necessary information on her email system.
You can review the entire hearing transcript (http://go2.judicialwatch.org/click?bu130-3de1l0-4mldldm5) here.
After the nearly three-hour hearing, Judge Sullivan announced he would rule on the issues as soon as possible. Stay tuned.

[Gunny]

The very fact they were taken off a secure, classified network and re-transmitted
initially to an unsecure and private network is a violation of our Law.

If they were further sent off that unsecure network, then that also is a violation.
Should what was said in the OP show to be true, that is multiple violations.

I just don't get why SHE is above the law. You know as well as I do that crap goes through the comm center and is signed for every step of the way.

And her lame as Hell "it was later classified" excuse doesn't ride either. You ever seen public information "later classified"? What would be the point?

[Elessar]

I just don't get why SHE is above the law. You know as well as I do that crap goes through the comm center and is signed for every step of the way.

And her lame as Hell "it was later classified" excuse doesn't ride either. You ever seen public information "later classified"? What would be the point?

That is completely correct. It could be added to or revised later during the process of
investigation, action, or other consequences - which might demand classification.

Even FOUO or 'Sensitive' items cannot be transmitted out of proper channels.

[Kathianne]

Judicial Watch is a treasure:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/


Judicial Watch Uncovers New Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/)AUGUST 09, 2016


Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684/) of State Department records, of which 44 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-huma-production-9-unpublished-00684-2/) email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department


The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-212/) pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy (http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/teneo-the-clinton-machine/) with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.


Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-255/) in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.


Chagoury (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2010/01/nigeria-chasing-the-ghosts-of-a-corrupt-regime.html) is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_clintondonor_20081218.html). He also pledged (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/no-fly-terror-list-includes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story?id=9791786) $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative (http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/the-clinton-shell-game/). According to a 2010 investigation (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2010/01/nigeria-chasing-the-ghosts-of-a-corrupt-regime.html) by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/senator-highlights-clinton-ties-to-nigerian-donor/) in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

...

[Kathianne]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/290864-in-email-state-dept-asked-to-take-care-of-clinton-foundation


In email, State asked to ‘take care of’ Clinton Foundation associate By Julian Hattem (http://thehill.com/author/julian-hattem) - 08/09/16 12:56 PM EDT

Shortly after Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) took the reins as U.S. secretary of State in 2009, a longtime confidante with deep ties to the Clinton Foundation pressed her senior aides to give a job to an unidentified male associate.

“Important to take care of” the person, Douglas Band told Clinton aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Nora Toiv in an April 22, 2009, email with the subject line “A favor…”. The name of the aide is redacted.

“We have all had him on our radar,” Abedin responded. “Personnel has been sending him options.”

The exchange (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-212/), which was obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and released on Tuesday, adds to the murky connections between Clinton’s role leading the State Department, her family foundation and a consulting firm for which Abedin worked part-time.

Band previously served as an aide to former President Bill Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/bill-clinton) and has performed multiple duties for the Clinton Foundation. He is also a founding partner and president of Teneo Holdings, the consulting firm.

The firm, and Abedin’s ability to work simultaneously for it and the State Department, have drawn ire (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252160-senate-chairman-confronts-clinton-aide) from some conservative corners, where critics have railed about conflicts of interest and warned that officials outside of the government had undue influence on U.S. diplomacy.

Among the other emails released by Judicial Watch on Tuesday are messages from Band asking to put a Lebanese-Nigerian businessman in touch with department officials.

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement, accusing the two of violating ethics rules.

“They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

[Kathianne]

Not hearing much about this on FOX, instead they are explaining what Trump said about the 2nd and the media and assassination:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438834/where-did-clinton-foundation-end-and-state-department-begin?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=August10geraghty


Where Did the Clinton Foundation End and the State Department Begin?

by JIM GERAGHTY August 10, 2016 7:58 AM From the midweek edition of the Morning Jolt…

Where Did the Clinton Foundation End and the State Department Begin?

Republicans may never again get such a beatable Democratic nominee:

Newly released e-mails from a top aide to Hillary Clinton show evidence of contacts between Clinton’s State Department and donors to her family foundation and political campaigns.

The e-mails released Tuesday by the conservative group Judicial Watch included a 2009 exchange in which Doug Band, a senior staff member at the Clinton Foundation, told a top Clinton aide at the State Department that it was “important to take care of” an individual, whose name was redacted. Huma Abedin, the State Department aide, replied that “personnel has been sending him options.”

The evident effort at job placement may add to criticism that the State Department was too close to the foundation during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, despite her pledge not to take actions benefiting her family’s charitable organization. The Republican Party has said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, sought to help contributors to the foundation in a “pay-for-play” scheme.

If you thought this was the sort of back-room favor-trading that Secretary of State would have to renounce before taking the job… you’re right!

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, charged that Mrs. Clinton “hid” the documents from the public because they appeared to contradict her official pledge in 2009 to remove herself from Clinton Foundation business while leading the State Department.

The documents indicate, he said in a telephone interview, that “the State Department and the Clinton Foundation worked hand in hand in terms of policy and donor effort.”

“There was no daylight between the two under Mrs. Clinton, and this was contrary to her promises,” he added.

These are not new concerns. People had been speculating that the Clinton Foundation had become a private version of the State Department, offering easy access to the State Department policy decision-making process for the wealthy and well-connected throughout Obama’s first term.

At no time did the U.S. State Department ever say to Bill Clinton that any of his unbelievably lucrative speaking gigs represented a conflict of interest – even if there was reason to believe a foreign government or entities closely allied with a foreign government were paying. Recall the State Department praising the progress of Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan as the president’s ally invited Bill Clinton to give two speeches in exchange for $1.4 million dollars. The State Department’s generous assessment of Jonathan’s human rights record stopped after the last speaking gig for Clinton.

The New Republic, back in September 2013:

There’s an undertow of transactionalism in the glittering annual dinners, the fixation on celebrity, and a certain contingent of donors whose charitable contributions and business interests occupy an uncomfortable proximity…

For corporations, attaching Clinton’s brand to their social investments offered a major p.r. boost. As further incentive, they could hope for a kind word from Clinton the next time they landed in a sticky spot. “Coca-Cola or Dow or whoever would come to the president,” explains a former White House colleague of Band’s, “and say, ‘We need your help on this.’ ” Negotiating these relationships, and the trade-offs they required, could involve some gray areas.

Directing $45 million in taxpayer money to build a luxury hotel in Haiti. Extracting $500,000 donations from school-building charities. More than $50 million in travel expenses in a decade.

For all of their flaws, the news media reported this. Bernie Sanders had the chance to play this card and refused. And the American public appears to be shrugging at this as well.

[Kathianne]

and new releases today. Panic about FOIA requests and Secretary Clinton:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-top-clinton-aide-alerted-email-inquiry/


Judicial Watch: New Documents Show Top Clinton Aide Alerted On Email Inquiry (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-top-clinton-aide-alerted-email-inquiry/) AUGUST 10, 2016


State Department Alerted Clinton Aide Cheryl Mills of CREW’s ‘Significant FOIA’ Request for Clinton Email Accounts – IG Later Found ‘No Records Response’ Inaccurate and Incomplete


(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 10 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-crew-documents-00574/) of new State Department records that include an email sent by State Department spokesman Brock Johnson alerting Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then Chief of Staff, that a “significant” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request had been made for records showing the number of email accounts used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


The documents were produced under court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-crew-court-order-00574/) in a March 2016, FOIA lawsuit against the State Department for all records “about the processing of a December 2012 FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW]” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/judicial-watch-v-state-crew-complaint-00574/)(No. 1:16-cv-00574)). Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that the “no records response” sent in response to this request was “inaccurate and incomplete.”


The documents show that at 4:11 p.m. on December 11, 2012, several State Department officials, including Brock and the Director of the Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (S/ES-CRM) Clarence Finney were alerted of the request seeking Clinton’s email addresses.


In an email exchange labeled “Significant FOIA Report” Brock alerts Mills about the FOIA request:
From: Johnson, Brock A
Sent: Tuesday, December 11 2012 05:39 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: FW: Significant FOIA Report
FYI on the attached FOIA request from:






Anne Weismann of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) requesting “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable as those of or associated with Secretary Clinton.”




Mills later sends an email that acknowledges receipt and “thanks” Brock.


In January 2016 the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/oig-january-2016-report-state-foia-process/) titled “Evaluation of the Department of State’s FOIA Processes for Requests Involving the Office of the Secretary,” which highlighted systemic problems within the State Department’s FOIA processing practices that led to “inaccurate and incomplete” responses to records requests:

In December 2012, the nonprofit organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a FOIA request to the Department seeking records “sufficient to show the number of email accounts of, or associated with, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable as those of or associated with Secretary Clinton.” On May 10, 2013, IPS [Information Programs and Services] replied to CREW, stating that “no records responsive to your request were located.” At the time the request was received, dozens of senior officials throughout the Department, including members of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, exchanged emails with the Secretary using the personal accounts she used to conduct official business. OIG found evidence that the Secretary’s then-Chief of Staff was informed of the request at the time it was received and subsequently tasked staff to follow up. However, OIG found no evidence to indicate that any of these senior officials reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW. OIG also found no evidence that the S/ES [Office of Secretary and Executive Secretariat], L [Office of the Legal Adviser], and IPS staff involved in responding to requests for information, searching for records, or drafting the response had knowledge of the Secretary’s email usage. Furthermore, it does not appear that S/ES searched any email records, even though the request clearly encompassed emails.



***


On August 11, 2014, the Department produced to the House Select Committee on Benghazi documents related to the 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. The production included a number of emails revealing that Secretary Clinton used a personal email account to conduct official business. OIG discovered four instances, between July and September 2014, in which staff from L, A, or the Bureau of Legislative Affairs reviewed the CREW request and the Department’s May 2013 response, but the Department did not amend its response. L and A [Bureau of Administration] staff also told OIG that the Department does not customarily revise responses to closed FOIA requests. Nevertheless, during the course of this review, Department staff advised OIG of their belief that the Department’s response to CREW was incorrect and that it should have been revised to include the former Secretary’s personal email account used to conduct official government business.



When asked during her deposition (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-email-update-judicial-watch-releases-former-clinton-chief-staff-cheryl-mills-deposition-testimony/) by Judicial Watch about CREW’s FOIA request, Mills spent several minutes testifying she could not recall much of anything about the controversy, despite its recency:


Q Okay. Do you recall a FOIA request that came in from CREW that’s discussed in this document [a letter from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) inquiring about the handling of the CREW FOIA request]?


A I don’t recall the specific FOIA request in terms of what was in the request. But I’ve obviously seen references to this in the media since then.


Q Do you recall a FOIA request that came in relating to — when you were at the State Department, of course, relating to the e-mail accounts used by Secretary Clinton and records that would provide for what the e-mail address was?


A I don’t have a specific recollection of it. But I certainly have read in the media exactly what is in here. And so while it doesn’t necessarily refresh my recollection, I do know that this – obviously this matter took place.


Q Okay. Do you recall or did Brock Johnson bring this FOIA request to your attention?
A I don’t have a specific memory of that.
Q Did you ever – or did you speak with Heather Samuelson [State Department and Clinton attorney who handled Clinton emails] regarding the CREW request?
A I don’t have a memory of that.



In a separate lawsuit, Judicial Watch has requested permission (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-asks-federal-court-additional-discovery-seeks-testimony-hillary-clinton/) from the court to depose Hillary Clinton, Mr. Finney, as well as the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (S/ES-IRM) John Bentel.


It is reported (http://freebeacon.com/issues/foia-request-for-hillary-clintons-email-address-went-missing/) that CREW’s request followed the news that Lisa Jackson, Obama’s former top EPA official, used an alias email account for government business named after her dog (http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/lisa-jacksons-windsor-knot-084112).


“This is evidence that Cheryl Mills covered up Hillary Clinton’s email system. She was aware of the FOIA request about Clinton’s email accounts and allowed a response to go out that was a plain lie. And you can bet if Cheryl Mills knew about this inquiry, then Hillary Clinton did, too,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This is all the more reason for Mrs. Clinton to finally testify under oath about the key details of her email practices.”

[Kathianne]

The Hill is reporting this morning that the 'recovered' emails that were deleted, including the 3 with top secret markings, would possibly not be released until after the election. Needless to say, Judicial Watch is on it. Keep in mind these were 'deleted' not lost:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/290906-deleted-clinton-emails-might-remain-secret-until-after-election


Deleted Clinton emails might remain secret until after election By Julian Hattem (http://thehill.com/author/julian-hattem) - 08/10/16 06:00 AM EDT


None of the work-related Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton) emails discovered by the FBI after being deleted from her private server have been released, raising questions about whether any will be seen in public before Election Day.

The FBI says it found “several thousand” work-related emails deleted by Clinton, but the State Department has not committed to a schedule for their release, and it will be up to a federal judge to determine when they could be made public.

“As we have just received this material from the FBI we are still assessing what our process will look like,” State spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said in a statement to The Hill on Tuesday.

Multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits have been filed to recover the emails. Litigants include conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and Vice News journalist Jason Leopold.

The FBI recovered an unspecific number of the 30,000 deleted emails during the course of its yearlong investigation into Clinton’s email setup, which ultimately failed to yield a produce an indictment against Clinton.

Clinton handed over a similarly sized batch of 30,000 emails to the State Department for safekeeping in late 2014.

FBI Director James Comey said last month (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286472-fbi-no-charges-against-clinton) that among those recovered emails were “several thousand” work-related messages, and three that contained classified information. Comey cautioned at the time that the FBI did not uncover evidence that Clinton intentionally tried thwart transparency laws, and instead suggested it was extreme sloppinesss on the part of the former secretary of State and her aides.

Last Friday, the FBI sent the final batch of emails that it had recovered to the State Department, which is responsible for going through them to redact any information that is classified or otherwise exempt from public disclosure.

“Just as we appropriately processed the material turned over to the Department by former Secretary Clinton, we will appropriately and with due diligence process any additional material we receive from the FBI to identify work-related agency records and make them available to the public consistent with our legal obligations,” Trudeau said.

The ongoing delay complicates the odds that Clinton’s deleted emails are made public before the election in November.

“It's hard to say,” Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ project on government secrecy, said in an email.

“I'm not sure where the line will ultimately be drawn.”

A delay until after the election could lead to allegations of a cover-up. GOP nominee Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) also already warned that the election might be “rigged” against him, and he would likely use an email holdup as evidence.

“All things being equal, they should be released by the election,” predicted Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch and a longtime Clinton antagonist. “But if the State Department once again plays campaign defense counsel for Mrs. Clinton, who knows?

“I just can’t imagine that untoward delays will be tolerated.”

A release in the weeks ahead of Nov. 8 might also be damaging for Clinton, however, by reigniting the public furor over a politically potent issue that the Democratic nominee’s presidential campaign has desperately been trying to put behind it.

Ultimately, most of the responsibility for deciding when the emails are released falls to a few federal judges in Washington, who are overseeing FOIA cases concerning Clinton’s emails. The judges are expected to order schedules for production in coming weeks.

“The decision is not entirely up to the State Department,” said Aftergood.

While judges have previously prodded the department not to dawdle with releases of Clinton’s emails, the State Department has routinely complained that FOIA lawsuits have overwhelmed its resources, and has quoted review times that can seem comical. In June, the department claimed that it would need 75 years (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/282434-state-dept-would-need-75-years-to-compile-clinton-emails) to process emails for top aides to Clinton in response to a lawsuit from the Republican National Committee.

...

[Bilgerat]

I just don't get why SHE is above the law. You know as well as I do that crap goes through the comm center and is signed for every step of the way.

And her lame as Hell "it was later classified" excuse doesn't ride either. You ever seen public information "later classified"? What would be the point?


When you have the lap-dog, left leaning media bought and paid for, you get a pass on ANYTHING possibly embarrassing to you being discussed.

And if it appears on Fox? Why then the "sheeple" are pre-programmed to simply dismiss it as being from "Faux" News.

And if it must be shown, it's delayed until the last minute, thereby ensuring news fatigue (and lesser attention).

So if a legal breech is NOT discussed, the Justice Department won't pursue it.

[fj1200]

Not hearing much about this on FOX, instead they are explaining what Trump said about the 2nd and the media and assassination:

:facepalm99:


When you have the lap-dog, left leaning media bought and paid for, you get a pass on ANYTHING possibly embarrassing to you being discussed.

But, but, trump is brilliant at working the media for free airtime. :confused:

[Kathianne]

I dunno know if Trump really wants to win, seems like he's trying hard not to. Hillary wants to, but seems her emails may make it near impossible, even not indicted. There's more to go, but dots are being connected and The Clinton Foundation and State Department appear to be in the process of exposed for pay to play. Mucho links and this is from this morning:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/10/bloomberg-daily-caller-bombshells-in-top-clinton-aides-e-mails-tie-back-to-former-marc-rich-partner/


Bloomberg, Daily Caller: Bombshells in top Clinton aides’ e-mails tie back to former Marc Rich partnerPOSTED AT 10:41 AM ON AUGUST 10, 2016 BY ED MORRISSEY
...

[Elessar]

I dunno know if Trump really wants to win, seems like he's trying hard not to. Hillary wants to, but seems her emails may make it near impossible, even not indicted. There's more to go, but dots are being connected and The Clinton Foundation and State Department appear to be in the process of exposed for pay to play. Mucho links and this is from this morning:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/10/bloomberg-daily-caller-bombshells-in-top-clinton-aides-e-mails-tie-back-to-former-marc-rich-partner/

I think he does, but he is a person not used to being shoved around. He needs to
be careful shooting from the hip. Probably needs strong advisors as well. It / they
would be like coaches, pulling him aside and say "Look Bubba, if You want to win this match,
listen carefully".


As for Hillairy...things are mounting up and I hope the system does not drag it out
until after the General Election. I worked with classified systems and materials for
26 of my 37 years. Had I done this crap, I would be chopping rocks in a Brig or
Federal Penitentiary.

[Kathianne]

Trump has a chance to seize on his likely rise from the pits of polling, thanks to Hillary. Looks like this will be the battle between 'which is really the bottom of the barrel? Will he let this last one of hers be the last? Will he find a new way to say, "I'm worse!"

The article is a bit heavy handed in only quoting 'pro-Trump' sources for their criticism, truth is there are reasons her unfavorables are where they are by citizens of all partisan groups. She is a known quantity and the 'emails' are a problem because they are the MO of Clinton. Talk of transparency and care and 'villages' while digging for riches at the public trough.

Trump's problem is himself. He engenders fear of how he'd behave in a position of public power.

Neither of these candidates are acceptable, but one of them is going to win.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291006-critics-seen-signs-of-improper-ties-in-new-clinton-emails


Critics see signs of improper ties in new Clinton emails


Republicans are seizing on a new collection of emails from senior aides to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton), which they say show signs of corruption between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

At least three of the 44 new email exchanges released by conservative group Judicial Watch this week show a potentially inappropriate connection between senior State Department officials and people with ties to the Clinton family.

In one case from early 2009, the former “body man” to ex-President Bill Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/bill-clinton) who helped to create the Clinton Global Initiative asked Hillary Clinton’s State Department aides to “take care of” (http://www.thehill.com/policy/national-security/290864-in-email-state-dept-asked-to-take-care-of-clinton-foundation) an unidentified associate as a “favor.”

In another message, the same man — Doug Band — asked Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills to connect (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-255/) a foundation donor and Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon.

And in the third case (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-70/), the chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia sent Clinton a copy of testimony he was due to provide to Congress, and asked to help with her work “in any way I can.” The next day, Clinton asked (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-80/) Abedin about “connecting” with him in Beijing, either at the “embassy or other event.”

The “newest email scandal exposes pay for play connections,” GOP nominee Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump)’s campaign blared to reporters on Wednesday.

“That the Clinton Foundation was calling in favors barely three months into Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department is deeply troubling and it is yet another reminder of the conflicts of interest and unethical wheeling and dealing she’d bring to the White House,” added Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short, in a statement.

The new emails (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283010-newly-released-emails-show-former-clinton-aide-appointed) add to the evidence of overlap between Clinton’s activities, which have dogged her throughout the presidential race.

In June, Clinton and the State Department came under fire for new signs that the former secretary of State had pushed for a financial trader and bundler of her 2008 presidential campaign to be appointed to an intelligence advisory board, despite his apparent lack of qualifications.

The trader, Rajiv Fernando, was added at the “insistence” of Clinton’s office, a State Department official said in the newly released emails

“Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?” Clinton aide Philippe Reines joked (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/284604-clinton-aide-joked-about-funders-appointment-to-intelligence-board) in an email at the time, which was released this summer.

For Clinton’s critics, the steady drip of revelations suggests that the Democratic presidential nominee was trying to hide her discussions by deleting roughly 30,000 emails from the private server housed at her New York home. The new emails released by Judicial Watch this week were not among the thousands of work-related emails she gave to the department for recordkeeping in 2014.

“She views public office as nothing more than a means to personal enrichment — and every dollar she takes comes at the expense of the public welfare,” Stephen Miller, the national policy director for Trump’s campaign, said in a statement on Tuesday evening.

“This latest finding is an unseemly, disturbing window into a corrupt office, and yet more evidence that Hillary Clinton has been lying from the beginning — and by any reasonable definition attempted to obstruct the investigation of the FBI.”

The FBI uncovered an undisclosed number of the deleted emails during the course of its yearlong investigation into possible mishandling of classified information, including “several thousand” that appeared work-related and ought to have been handed over to the State Department.

Many of those emails are the subject of ongoing open records lawsuits, though it is unclear whether they will be made public by Election Day in November.

“The department recently received documents from the FBI reflecting emails sent to or from former Secretary Clinton’s email, which were not included in the materials provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton in December, 2014,” department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters on Tuesday.

“There are many [Freedom of Information Act] requests related to former Secretary Clinton’s emails. We are now focused on responding.”

The State Department has maintained that Clinton’s ties outside of the government did not have any impact on her role as the nation’s top diplomat.
FBI Director James Comey this summer declined (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286900-fbi-wont-rule-out-probe-into-clinton-foundation) to say whether the bureau was investigating the possibility of improper ties between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

However, the email saga has dragged on for longer than a year, and eroded much of the public trust in her. Ongoing focus on her server or ties to the Clinton Foundation is only likely to intensify that criticism.

“In the law, you know, one is allowed to draw an adverse inference when a witness or a party destroys evidence. And given some of the corruption we have seen in both the Clinton Foundation and in the government under Hillary Clinton, I think it's reasonable for Americans to draw an adverse inference,” Sen. Tom Cotton (http://thehill.com/people/tom-cotton) (R-Ark.) said on Fox News on Tuesday evening.

“She set up an email server specifically to avoid public scrutiny and that the controversy between her email on one hand, and the Clinton Foundation on the other, are not two distinct controversies.

“Those are the same controversy.”

[Kathianne]

Funny how more non-Trumpers seem to see the opening for Trump than he or his supporters do:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438887/krauthammer-clinton-foundation-secrets-may-have-been-e-mail-server?utm_source=NR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=August11ctake


Krauthammer’s Take: Improper Clinton Foundation E-mails “Could Destroy Her Candidacy”

Discussing how seriously to take concerns that Hillary Clinton mixed business in the Clinton Foundation with duties as secretary of state, Charles Krauthammer speculated that her dishonesty on that could be connected to her secret server:

This, I think, can be quite ominous. There are two questions that have been outstanding forever. The first is: what exactly does the foundation do? I know what Habitat for Humanity does. I know what the Gates Foundation does. It is obvious that it was a huge networking operation: funding, supporting, giving jobs to the entire Clinton retinue, waiting for her accession, for the Clintons to return to the White House. And the second question is: why does she have a private server?

I have always speculated here, and I said it was pure speculation, that the real stuff, the reason she had to hide all this, obviously she meant to hide things, was because there is something having to do with the foundation. And that’s where you would put all the so-called private stuff. It wasn’t yoga lessons or wedding invitations. If there was anything about improper connections, and we see them here — this is just a hint of it, just a few e-mails. What was in the 30,000? If anybody gets their hands on them, Russian or not, there could come spilling out stuff that could destroy her candidacy.

She knows what’s in there. But if anything, it’s the connection between the foundation and what she did as secretary of state. Whether there was a direct quid pro quo is irrelevant. We’re talking now not about criminal activity but the political effect. And it could be devastating.

[Kathianne]

How Big?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/11/tapper-pay-for-play-emails-show-clintons-think-rules-dont-apply-to-them/


Tapper: Pay-for-play emails show ‘Clintons think rules don’t apply to them”

POSTED AT 8:41 AM ON AUGUST 11, 2016 BY LARRY O'CONNOR


The revelations found in a new batch of emails uncovered by Judicial Watch got a healthy dose of media coverage Wednesday as revelations of an apparent “pay-for-play” arrangement between the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton State Department raised eyebrows even in the most biased newsrooms in America. (Yes, even MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/new-questions-after-more-emails-released-741937731630)and NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489462473/new-emails-raise-questions-about-ties-between-clinton-foundation-and-state-dept)covered the story.)
In fact…

State Dept: Clinton Foundation Conflicts Policy Didn’t Apply To Top Aides (http://click1.comms.gop.com/gnwjlqyfthwdrqrqdkpkydsynsdfnnkpjgrkgcscygnllm_thj lvlvjczc.html?a=15158626)

CNN’s Griffin: “It’s Really Hard To Tell Where Any Lines Are Drawn” Between State Dept. Clinton Fdn. (http://click1.comms.gop.com/wgztnqlhsyfbgqgqbwmwlbklzkbhzzwmtvgwvdkdlvznzf_thj lvlvjczc.html?a=15158626)

CNN’s Griffin: Emails Show “Cozy Relationships” With Donors, “Wink & Nod” Approach At State Dept. (http://click1.comms.gop.com/fjgcgzspnfqwjzjzwblbswtsrtwprrblchjbhdtdshrgrd_thj lvlvjczc.html?a=15158626)

Dean Dodges When Asked About Clinton Fdn/State Dept Ties, Repeats Fact Checked Secret Server TP’s (http://click1.comms.gop.com/dccldkpbmngfckckfrwrpfzpszfbssrwlhcrhtztphsdsh_thj lvlvjczc.html?a=15158626)

MSNBC’s Welker: Emails “Raise Questions” About Clinton Fdn/State Dept Ties, Favors Done For Donors (http://click1.comms.gop.com/ahyvtzkcpwbnhzhznygyknrksrncssygvdhydmrmkdstsy_thj lvlvjczc.html?a=15158626)

Ron Fournier: Clinton Emails Blur The Lines Between Their Political And Personal Lives (http://click1.comms.gop.com/hcblhrqdwgnzcrcrzspsqzjqmjzdmmsplbcsbvjvqbmhmc_thj lvlvjczc.html?a=15158626)


And on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, Tapper conducted a panel discussion with David Gergen and Jackie Kucinich where he pointed out what should evident to any other journalist not dazzled by the Clinton Campaign (and State Department) spin:

Video at site



“This does feed into the narrative out there that the Clintons in general don’t think that the rules apply to them, and can’t understand why anybody would ever question their ethics or their integrity. This is exactly what the Obama transition team in 2008 wanted to avoid. They wanted a clear dilatation between the foundation and the State Department.”



“This does feed into the narrative out there that the Clintons in general don’t think that the rules apply to them,” is the quote being highlighted by many on the Internet because it resonates with one of the major problems with Clintonland. It also resonates across party lines because the Bernie Sanders campaign fed this narrative for the past year as well.

But, frankly, I appreciate the second part of Tapper’s statement even more than the first. “And (they) can’t understand why anybody would ever question their ethics or their integrity.”

It’s not just the apparent corruption and violation of the law that fuels resentment toward the Clintons, it’s the sanctimonious indignation that there’s something wrong with YOU for even daring to raise a question about their pristine integrity. It’s truly offensive and one of the things that makes Secretary Clinton that much more unlikable to the American people.

A clear example of this dismissive indignation occurred in the very first response she gave to the email scandal during her brief, encounter with journalists at the United Nations in March, 2015 when she deigned to grant an audience to the media to answer a small handful of questions.

Another video at site

People forget that before she <del style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">lied to reporters and the American people</del> answered questions about her emails, she gave a statement about human rights and women’s rights around the world and then gave a statement about the negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal and a letter sent to the Iranian government by Republican senators regarding the President’s ability to make that deal without Senate confirmation.

After reading those statements she then said this:


“Now, I would be pleased to talk more about this important matter, but I know there have been questions about my email, so I want to address that directly, and then I will take a few questions from you.”



In other words: “I’m a really important person dealing with really important issues but you pesky journalists and right-wing enemies want to distract the American people with this non-story about my emails.”

Over a year later we still have not gotten a straight answer from Clinton about her email server and she continues to lie about not only the scheme but the FBI investigation into it, but the noblesse oblige attitude in disseminating information to the huddled masses continues.

And unless the Trump campaign can figure out how to pounce on these latest revelations of the incestuous relationship between the Hillary’s cronies at the Clinton Foundation and the inner workings of the United States State Department, we should all prepare for four year of this kind of haughty attitude from “our betters” in the White House.

[DLT]

https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-hillary-clinton-exchanged-classified-emails-on-private-server-with-three-aides

Hillary and Obama both have much blood on their hands at this point. And I'm quite certain that she is chomping at the bit to have even more. That is probably the ONLY thing I could say positive about Donald Trump at this point.....that perhaps he does not have any blood on his tiny hands. Small comfort, that....considering that he has supported, donated to and aided Hillary and other radical leftist Democrats in the past.

[Kathianne]

SInce the FBI obviously knows about these, not sure it's a big deal. However it's another 'she lied,' point. Then there's Colin Powell who finally got sick of being blamed by Hillary:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/292199-fbi-uncovered-15k-undisclosed-emails-in-clinton-probe


FBI uncovers 15K undisclosed emails in Clinton probe By Katie Bo Williams - 08/22/16 11:08 AM EDT




The FBI has uncovered almost 15,000 previously undisclosed documents sent directly to or fromHillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton), State Department lawyers confirmed before a federal judge on Monday.


The documents were found during the course of the FBI's investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of State. The number is almost 50 percent more than the 30,000 work-related documents that Clinton’s lawyers turned over to the State Department in 2014.

...

[Kathianne]

Sometimes I miss the forest through the trees. It's not like I thought indictment would be the only price she'd pay. She is likely going to take a big hit on these, thank you, Judicial Watch:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/22/another-newly-uncovered-email-shows-huma-abedin-communicating-with-clinton-foundation/


Email chain shows Huma Abedin arranging for Clinton Foundation donors to meet with Hillary

POSTED AT 8:31 PM ON AUGUST 22, 2016 BY JOHN SEXTON

Judicial Watch released more than 700 new pages of State Department correspondence today. One of the exchanges shows Huma Abedin responding to a response from the Clinton Foundation’s Doug Band to set up a meeting for the Crown Prince of Bahrain. From Judicial Watch’s press release (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/):



The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin…

Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours. According to the Clinton Foundation website (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/crown-princes-international-scholarship-program), in 2005, Salman committed to establishing the Crown Prince’s International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2450%2C001%20to%20%24100%2C 000&page=5) to the Clinton Foundation. And Bahrain Petroleum also gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000 (http://projects.nytimes.com/clinton-donors/page/18).


In the email exchange, Doug Band wrote, “Cp of Bahrain in tomorrow to Friday Asking to see her Good friend of ours[.]” Huma responded, “He asked to see hrc thurs and fri thru normal channels. I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny…” That was on June 23. 2009, but two days later the story had changed. “Offering Bahrain cp 10 tomorrow for meeting woith [sic] hrc If u see him, let him know We have reached out thru official channels[.]” Abedin wrote in an email to Band.

Other email chains uncovered today include Abedin informing Hillary that billionaire S. Daniel Abraham (creator of Slim-Fast shakes) had called and wanted to meet with her. In the email chain (subject line: Danny) Clinton responded by asking if the plane would wait for her if she was late. Judicial Watch notes that “Danny” has donated $5-$10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

[Kathianne]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-clinton-mail-saga-continues/story?id=41588928


The Note: The Clinton E-mail Saga Continues

By MICHAEL FALCONE



Aug 23, 2016, 9:07 AM ET


--CLINTON TELLS JIMMY KIMMEL SHE'S 'EMBARRASSED' BY 'BORING' EMAILS: Hillary Clinton took on two controversial topics in a late-night interview on ABC's 'Jimmy Kimmel (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/entertainment/comedians/jimmy-kimmel.htm) Live' on Monday. First, Kimmel quizzed the Democratic presidential candidate about news that broke earlier in the day of the release of additional emails from the time she served as secretary of state. "The state department said that they have to release 15,000 emails by the deadline is a couple of days before the debate," Kimmel said. "Are you concerned about that?" "No," Clinton responded. "Jimmy my emails are so boring. And I’m embarrassed about that. They’re so boring. So we’ve already released, I don’t know, 30,000 plus so what’s a few more."http://abcn.ws/2bdtPY5 WHAT THE FBI FOUND:http://abcn.ws/2bcNNl9

...

--TRUMP CALLS FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON’S EMAILS: Speaking in front of an enthusiastic crowd at the University of Akron last night, Donald Trump intensified his calls for an investigation into his Democratic rival's emails, saying that a special prosecutor must take over the case, ABC’s CANDACE SMITH reports. "After the FBI and Department of Justice whitewashed Hillary Clinton’s email crimes, they certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton’s new crimes," Trump said. "The Justice Department is required to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor because it has proven itself to be really, sadly a political arm of the White House.” http://abcn.ws/2brgOxh


--ANALYSIS -- ABC’s RICK KLEIN: “We’ve already released, I don’t know, 30,000 plus,” Hillary Clinton told Jimmy Kimmel Monday, “so what’s a few more?” To answer that question: quite a lot. Clinton’s defense of her own behavior in the never-ending story of her own email server has been built on a few pillars that have shown cracks: that the practice was permitted and had precedent, that she never sent or received classified material, that she released all of her work-related emails. Colin Powell and James Comey have weakened the first two defenses. Now Clinton herself is seemingly acknowledging that there are more emails that weren’t released. That’s actually now already established. The emails disclosed by Judicial Watch include another 20 involving the secretary of state that weren’t part of the official State Department release, according to the conservative group. Maybe the rest, as Clinton told Kimmel, are so boring as to be embarrassing. But the real embarrassment could be even more disclosures, all the way through October, of work-related emails that Clinton and her team said did not exist.


...

NEW DOCS SHOW CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS SOUGHT ACCESS TO STATE DEPARTMENT. Government email traffic and internal call logs made public by conservative groups this week offer more evidence that donors to the Clinton Foundation sought, and at times received, special favors and access to the State Department. “Mrs. Clinton and her staff treated the State Department as an arm of the Clinton Foundation,” said Tom Fitton, president of the group Judicial Watch, which released 725 pages of State Department emails between top Clinton aides as part of a lawsuit the group filed seeking government records. The documents are the latest to show how a top official with the Clinton Foundation – longtime aide to President Clinton Doug Band – served as a conduit on behalf of Foundation donors seeking access to the State Department. More from ABC’s BRIAN ROSS and MATTHEW MOSK: http://abcn.ws/2bJtKwn

[Perianne]

Hillary and Obama both have much blood on their hands at this point. And I'm quite certain that she is chomping at the bit to have even more. That is probably the ONLY thing I could say positive about Donald Trump at this point.....that perhaps he does not have any blood on his tiny hands. Small comfort, that....considering that he has supported, donated to and aided Hillary and other radical leftist Democrats in the past.

If he supported the radicals, doesn't he have at least a little blood on his hands?

[Kathianne]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13


Court Orders New Clinton Email Production by September 13 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13/)AUGUST 25, 2016

State Admits Benghazi Material in New Cache of Emails Clinton Failed to Produce

(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that a federal court has ordered the State Department to review newly found Clinton emails and turn over responsive records by September 13. And, in two other Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the State Department is scheduled to release additional emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system beginning September 30. In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department.


The first batch of new emails comes in response to a court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/kawa-v-state-expedited-deadline-81560/) issued today in a November 13, 2015, Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-new-lawsuit-for-clintons-benghazi-emails-on-behalf-of-dr-larry-kawa/) FOIA lawsuit filed against the Department of State seeking all communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House from the day of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and throughout the following week. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dr. Larry Kawa of Boca Raton, Florida, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division (Larry Kawa v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/kawa-v-state-81560/) (No. 9:15-cv-81560)). Today’s order requiring the production of the emails from the 14,900 new Clinton emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-hearing-transcript-00687/) as well as any other communications or emails from the other materials recently delivered to the State Department by the FBI was issued by U.S. District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. The court ruled (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/kawa-v-state-expedited-deadline-81560/):



The State Department shall search the material, determine whether any responsive records exist, and complete its first production of non-exempt records, to the extent any exist, by September 13, 2016.


...

[Elessar]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13

I saw this one as well.

Why isn't the MSM all over this?

Wait! Stupid question. They are owned and controlled by the DNC.

[Kathianne]

It's started: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=september+13+emails&tbm=nws

[Kathianne]

Color me surprised, not.

It really is tough to hide things today, eventually it all comes out.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2601060/

[Kathianne]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/even-worse-than-clintons-emails-1473116518

[NightTrain]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/even-worse-than-clintons-emails-1473116518

Can't see past the paywall!

[pete311]

GW apparently lost 22M emails.
http://www.newsweek.com/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373

[Elessar]

GW apparently lost 22M emails.
http://www.newsweek.com/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373

Subject is the present candidate. Not anyone else.

Get with the program.

[pete311]

Subject is the present candidate. Not anyone else.

Get with the program.

I'm drawing a comparison with the present candidate. If 22M emails lost wasn't a big deal for GW then several thousands lost for Clinton shouldn't either.

[fj1200]

I'm drawing a comparison with the present candidate. If 22M emails lost wasn't a big deal for GW then several thousands lost for Clinton shouldn't either.

You can only go off topic to whine about muzzies, libbies/Dems err, dims, gays, etc. I believe the difference between the two would be intent setting aside the whole classified/private server business.

[jimnyc]

GW apparently lost 22M emails.
http://www.newsweek.com/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373

I don't believe anyone brought up Bush in this thread? Nor did anyone state he did anything with emails. So why bring such stuff up and go off topic??

[Kathianne]

I don't believe anyone brought up Bush in this thread? Nor did anyone state he did anything with emails. So why bring such stuff up and go off topic??

I agree. Since it was brought up though, they were recovered albeit late.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/


...But Scott Stanzel, a former deputy press secretary in the Bush White House, said the group "has consistently tried to create a spooky conspiracy out of standard IT issues."

"We always indicated that there is an e-mail archiving system and a disaster recovery system," Stanzel said. "We also indicated that e-mails not properly archived could be found on disaster recovery tapes. There is a big, big difference between something not being properly archived and it being 'lost' or 'missing,' as CREW would say."...

[jimnyc]

I agree. Since it was brought up though, they were recovered albeit late.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/


Oh, I know. I was just messin with Pete, who :poke: me for daring bring up the left in a thread about Trump, that I started. :)

[Kathianne]

Oh, I know. I was just messin with Pete, who :poke: me for daring bring up the left in a thread about Trump, that I started. :)

Yep and no bleach bit, no obstruction...

[Drummond]

All of this Clinton mess says one thing: she's unfit to be President.

Unfortunately .. she wields such power and influence, even in this stage of the 'game', that I'm sure nobody seriously believes any action will be taken against her.

... Except one, that is - and then, only if successful ... namely, SHE MUST BE DEFEATED IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION.

There's just one way to do it. Get Trump elected.