State Dept Gives Us More Hildebeast Emails “Found” by the FBI [Weekly Update]

The Purge

Platinum Member
Aug 16, 2018
17,881
7,856
400
Judicial Watch ^ | March 20, 2020 | Tom Fitton

New Clinton Emails Include Benghazi and Classified Information
Schiff Asserts Privilege over His Impeachment Phone Record Subpoenas
FBI Shuts Online Public Records Operation over Coronavirus
Another Illegal Immigrant Caravan Leaves Honduras for the U.S.


80 pages of emails that further document how former Secretary of State Clinton used her unsecure, non-government email system to transmit classified and other sensitive government information.

There are 11 new Clinton emails. The emails include one sent by Clinton a month after the Benghazi terrorist attack referencing a “Benghazi security” issue. The emails also include talking points, which are redacted, for a meeting with President Obama.

This is the second release from the batch of Clinton emails the FBI inexplicably found late last year

The State Department previously claimed it had produced all releasable Clinton emails, including emails recovered by the FBI that Clinton tried to destroy or withhold. The State Department initially claimed all responsive emails had been produced in 2018, but then found more emails, which were produced for the first time early this year.

The emails were produced to us in a FOIA lawsuit we filed seeking all of Clinton’s government emails sent or received on her non-government system ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)).

The new emails include an October 13, 2012, message from Clinton telling private attorney Robert Barnett about a conversation with Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff, about Benghazi: “Jake and I were discussing the Benghazi security issue since he tried to tell [Redacted] would be asked about it but they didn’t think so. Might be good for you to call Jake too.” Clinton also mentions then-candidate Mitt Romney’s “ 47% remark ,” referring to his dismissal of Obama voters as irresponsible.

On August 29, 2011, Sullivan sends a “ cheat sheet ” with “key issues” to Clinton, Abedin and Clinton’s confidential assistant Monica Hanley including “Talking Points for POTUS” for a briefing that day. The talking points are completely redacted.

The new email cache includes an email dated August 31, 2011, that former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman sends to former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, William Burns and others, which is heavily redacted as classified. Burns forwards the email to Sullivan. Sullivan forwards it to Clinton’s private email, and she responds: “I called him [redacted.] Didn’t you get memcon?”

On December 22, 2009 , former Ambassador Joseph Wilson emails Clinton “directly … rather than Sid [likely Sidney Blumenthal ]” about Afghanistan, disparaging “cost plus contractors” and promoting his company, Symbion Power. Wilson includes a memo from his boss, an Inspector General audit of USAID in Afghanistan’s power sector activities and a memo of USAID management’s comments regarding the audit. Clinton forwards the email to Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Jacob Lew , Mills and Sullivan with the following instructions:

Please check out what Joe is saying here. He is now working for a company that has a good track record building in Iraq and wants to do so in Afghanistan. Let me know. Thx.

On August 30, 2011, Melanne Verveer emails Clinton an article titled “Family planning as a pro-life cause,” and tells Clinton “I know you are going off to France for the Libya meeting.” Clinton forwards the message to Sullivan.

On August 28, 2011, Clinton aide Lona Valmoro sends Clinton, Abedin and Sullivan a copy of Clinton’s sensitive daily schedule , which is fully redacted.

On November 1, 2012, Valmoro sends Clinton, Abedin and Hanley a copy of Clinton’s sensitive schedule that includes a briefing with President Obama and afterward a meeting with then-Special Envoy for Middle East Peace David Hale, Burns and Sullivan.

In a September 1, 2011, email marked sensitive Abedin notifies Clinton that United Arab Emirates’ money for the Transitional National Council of Libya is blocked in the U.S. financial system. The assumption was that the money was actually frozen Libyan assets. The UAE claimed it was not Libyan money.

The State Department did not provide information about where the emails were found; why they were not previously produced; or if additional records are anticipated. In November 2019, the State Department first disclosed to the court that the FBI had found this latest batch of emails. In a December 2019 court hearing, a Justice Department attorney could not tell a federal court judge how and where the FBI discovered the new cache of Clinton emails. In authorizing additional discovery , including the deposition testimony of Hillary Clinton, in this separate Judicial Watch lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Lamberth specifically referenced the FBI’s recent discovery of Clinton emails:

With each passing round of discovery, the Court is left with more questions than answers. What’s more, during the December 19, 2019, status conference, Judicial Watch disclosed that the FBI recently produced approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails. State failed to fully explain the new emails’ origins when the Court directly questioned where they came from.

SO MUCH MORE TO READ AT

Even though many important questions remain unanswered, the Justice Department inexplicably still takes the position that the Court should close discovery and rule on dispositive motions. The Court is especially troubled by this. To argue that the Court now has enough information to determine whether State conducted an adequate search is preposterous, especially when considering State’s deficient representations regarding the existence of additional Clinton emails.

Magically, after years, the FBI finds more Clinton emails that are classified, involve Benghazi, and detail communications with President Obama. This drip, drip game that the DOJ, FBI, and State are playing is a key reason a federal court authorized more discovery, including the sworn deposition of Hillary Clinton.

Continued
 
So, nothing then? Keep digging you just might find something to beat her in the 2016 general election.
 
source.gif
 
Wow...

World is falliing a part and you are still bringing up this shit...

Lets be clear, Trump is a failure. He is failing before and during a crisis, the economy is in the toilet, he has borrowed from the Chinese to the hilt, he divided America more, Stock Market taking record spanking...

Thanks for bringing up Hillary, a lot of people wish was in charge right now

#RealLeaderNeeded

 
Wow...

World is falliing a part and you are still bringing up this shit...

Lets be clear, Trump is a failure. He is failing before and during a crisis, the economy is in the toilet, he has borrowed from the Chinese to the hilt, he divided America more, Stock Market taking record spanking...

Thanks for bringing up Hillary, a lot of people wish was in charge right now

#RealLeaderNeeded

CapitolBuildingInRuinsButHerEmails.jpg
 

Why? It's done with. Like the Mueller investigation.






Because this country is supposed to be a nation of laws. If one group gets to ignore those laws then this country has started down the slide to a police state. That's why.

So...Trump gets to ignore those laws and Hilary continues to get pursued? hmm

Being a nation of laws means we also accept the outcome of our legal system. Hilary Clinton has been the most investigated political person in recent history - and every time, she is cleared even with a Republican majority pursuing it. Some how that seems to me to be saying enough already. When will her attackers - who believe we are a nation of laws - accept the verdict of those laws?

The Mueller report is the final verdict on claims of collusion regarding Trump, and it's a mixed verdict.

The Clinton Email Server investigation - same thing.

When will people move on?
 

Why? It's done with. Like the Mueller investigation.






Because this country is supposed to be a nation of laws. If one group gets to ignore those laws then this country has started down the slide to a police state. That's why.

So...Trump gets to ignore those laws and Hilary continues to get pursued? hmm

Being a nation of laws means we also accept the outcome of our legal system. Hilary Clinton has been the most investigated political person in recent history - and every time, she is cleared even with a Republican majority pursuing it. Some how that seems to me to be saying enough already. When will her attackers - who believe we are a nation of laws - accept the verdict of those laws?

The Mueller report is the final verdict on claims of collusion regarding Trump, and it's a mixed verdict.

The Clinton Email Server investigation - same thing.

When will people move on?






I really wish you could point to an actual law he has broken. Please provide a link to the actual evidence, not an opinion. Please.
 

Why? It's done with. Like the Mueller investigation.






Because this country is supposed to be a nation of laws. If one group gets to ignore those laws then this country has started down the slide to a police state. That's why.

So...Trump gets to ignore those laws and Hilary continues to get pursued? hmm

Being a nation of laws means we also accept the outcome of our legal system. Hilary Clinton has been the most investigated political person in recent history - and every time, she is cleared even with a Republican majority pursuing it. Some how that seems to me to be saying enough already. When will her attackers - who believe we are a nation of laws - accept the verdict of those laws?

The Mueller report is the final verdict on claims of collusion regarding Trump, and it's a mixed verdict.

The Clinton Email Server investigation - same thing.

When will people move on?






I really wish you could point to an actual law he has broken. Please provide a link to the actual evidence, not an opinion. Please.


Not going to go into that. Remember, Mueller did not exonerate him from obstruction of justice, and said the only reason he couldn't be prosecuted was the new DoJ guidance that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

But you are still going after Hilary....despite multiple investigations clearing her of wrong doing and stating that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her use of the server.

Two similar situations.
 
You should.

Why? It's done with. Like the Mueller investigation.






Because this country is supposed to be a nation of laws. If one group gets to ignore those laws then this country has started down the slide to a police state. That's why.

So...Trump gets to ignore those laws and Hilary continues to get pursued? hmm

Being a nation of laws means we also accept the outcome of our legal system. Hilary Clinton has been the most investigated political person in recent history - and every time, she is cleared even with a Republican majority pursuing it. Some how that seems to me to be saying enough already. When will her attackers - who believe we are a nation of laws - accept the verdict of those laws?

The Mueller report is the final verdict on claims of collusion regarding Trump, and it's a mixed verdict.

The Clinton Email Server investigation - same thing.

When will people move on?






I really wish you could point to an actual law he has broken. Please provide a link to the actual evidence, not an opinion. Please.


Not going to go into that. Remember, Mueller did not exonerate him from obstruction of justice, and said the only reason he couldn't be prosecuted was the new DoJ guidance that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

But you are still going after Hilary....despite multiple investigations clearing her of wrong doing and stating that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her use of the server.

Two similar situations.






The fact that mueller wasn't able to bring charges in the first place IS an exoneration. The way the Court System works in this country is very simple. If there is no evidence, there is no crime. Not somebodys opinion, NO CRIME. What mueller did was antithetical to our system of jurisprudence. It is not his job to exonerate. He CAN'T exonerate. All he can do is indict. If he had evidence, he would have indicted. The crap they used for the report was a joke.

We want hilary indicted because she DID break the law. And THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE THAT SHE DID SO!

Do you not see the difference?
 
Why? It's done with. Like the Mueller investigation.






Because this country is supposed to be a nation of laws. If one group gets to ignore those laws then this country has started down the slide to a police state. That's why.

So...Trump gets to ignore those laws and Hilary continues to get pursued? hmm

Being a nation of laws means we also accept the outcome of our legal system. Hilary Clinton has been the most investigated political person in recent history - and every time, she is cleared even with a Republican majority pursuing it. Some how that seems to me to be saying enough already. When will her attackers - who believe we are a nation of laws - accept the verdict of those laws?

The Mueller report is the final verdict on claims of collusion regarding Trump, and it's a mixed verdict.

The Clinton Email Server investigation - same thing.

When will people move on?






I really wish you could point to an actual law he has broken. Please provide a link to the actual evidence, not an opinion. Please.


Not going to go into that. Remember, Mueller did not exonerate him from obstruction of justice, and said the only reason he couldn't be prosecuted was the new DoJ guidance that a sitting president can't be prosecuted.

But you are still going after Hilary....despite multiple investigations clearing her of wrong doing and stating that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her use of the server.

Two similar situations.






The fact that mueller wasn't able to bring charges in the first place IS an exoneration. The way the Court System works in this country is very simple. If there is no evidence, there is no crime. Not somebodys opinion, NO CRIME. What mueller did was antithetical to our system of jurisprudence. It is not his job to exonerate. He CAN'T exonerate. All he can do is indict. If he had evidence, he would have indicted. The crap they used for the report was a joke.

We want hilary indicted because she DID break the law. And THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE THAT SHE DID SO!

Do you not see the difference?


No. I don't. You can't indict a sitting president per the DoJ edict. Trump could have shot someone in the middle of the street and he couldn't be indicted. Does that mean he did not commit a crime? That there was no evidence? Come on...

Tell me this: If you or I committed a crime, would prosecutors be told they could not prosecute us because of our jobs?
 

Forum List

Back
Top