More Classified Hillary Clinton Emails Released

It seems every few months we see more Hillary emails released by the government that have classified stuff.

A new batch given to Judicial Watch is because of FOIA requests.

She kept insisting all the work related emails were turned over voluntarily but these are from recovered records the FBI got from her deleted sectors.

They just keep popping up from nowhere 😆

Now let's get some Democrats to denounce this and ask for her arrest 😎

Hillary Clinton was the best of the entire Democrat Batch wasn't she 😄

Clinton, in newly revealed emails, discussed classified foreign policy matters, secretive 'private' comms channel with Israel

A newly unearthed batch of heavily redacted, classified emails from Hillary Clinton's personal email server revealed that the former secretary of state discussed establishing a "private, 100% off-the-record" back channel to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that one of her top aides warned her that she was in "danger" of being "savaged by Jewish organizations, in the Jewish press and among the phalanx of neoconservative media" as a result of political machinations by "Bibi and the Jewish leadership."

The 756-page group of new documents, revealed Thursday as part of a transparency lawsuit by Judicial Watch, seemingly contradicted Clinton's insistence under oath in 2015 that she had turned over all of her sensitive work-related emails to the State Department, and included a slew of classified communications on everything from foreign policy to State Department personnel matters.

The files came from a trove of 72,000 documents the FBI recovered and turned over to the State Department in 2017.

Judicial Watch Article

Link to the emails

"Stop coming after ME !!! I had my own best interests at heart !"

a reply to: xuenchen

i looked at the link.
it did not say a law had been broken.
it did not say a crime had been committed.

so what is it that we are suppose to get from this article?

a reply to: subfab

You'll get an educated answer soon enough 😎

a reply to: xuenchen

if a law has been broken then she should be brought to court and explain her actions.

didn't she already face a senate committee for the email thing?
and if i remember correct she was not found guilty of any wrong doing.

a reply to: subfab

You'll get an educated answer soon enough 😎

a reply to: subfab

Relax man, Comey exonerated Her completely.

a reply to: subfab

Yet apparently you will not get that educated answer from our OP.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: xuenchen

i looked at the link.
it did not say a law had been broken.
it did not say a crime had been committed.

so what is it that we are suppose to get from this article?

~sigh~... an example, I guess...

In September 2, 2010, email exchange marked classified, longtime Clinton confidante Lanny Davis tells Secretary Clinton that he could serve as a private channel for her to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he had a “private and highly trusted communication line, unofficial and personal, to PM N[etanyahu].” Davis goes on to say “[N]o one on the planet (other than your wonderful husband) can get this done as well as you.…” Secretary Clinton responds with classified information, saying “I will reach out to you directly and hope you will continue to do the same w me. The most important issue now is [Redacted B1].”

OK.. this is but one line I just lifted from the emails.

In this paragraph, she committed four separate felonies ( 2 counts having classified information stored on an unsecured device, 2 counts transmitting information marked classified out of secure area). Then there is the information in it... Lanny Davis offering a private, unsecured private channel between Hillary and Benji.

Which if you would like to interpret it under the actual letter of the law is called sedition.

One paragraph, 5 felonies.

Care to go on?

a reply to: Lumenari

my point is that if she broke a law, then both links in the opening post would have stated it to be so.

if she broke a law then she should be held accountable for it.
but after a senate committee hearing and hours of testimony, she was found not guilty of wrong doing.
did i miss something here?
a link to where she was found guilty of a crime would be nice.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: xuenchen

i looked at the link.
it did not say a law had been broken.
it did not say a crime had been committed.

so what is it that we are suppose to get from this article?

Really?
The law being broken is more classified emails on her unsecured, private server.
Just like all the other classified emails on her unsecured, private server.
If you think it didn’t happen because Comey and Lynch let her off the hook, think again.....it happened and they let her off the hook because they thought she would be president and they would get cushy Cabinet or Supreme Court positions in her administration.
It’s time to stop denying it.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: Lumenari

my point is that if she broke a law, then both links in the opening post would have stated it to be so.

if she broke a law then she should be held accountable for it.
but after a senate committee hearing and hours of testimony, she was found not guilty of wrong doing.
did i miss something here?
a link to where she was found guilty of a crime would be nice.

Actually, Comey himself found her guilty, after exonerating her before interviewing her.

Then said no reasonable attorney would prosecute her, assuming the power of the Attorney General for that moment.

That's kinda what half of America is pissed off right now about... she committed about 30,000 felonies that we know of and both the DoJ and the FBI let her and everyone else involved walk... because she was soon to become President.

Feel free to keep up.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: subfab

You'll get an educated answer soon enough 😎

😎

a reply to: subfab

Recent sworn testimonies from former and fired FBI/DOJ people say she violated the "Gross Negligence" statutes but others in the Obama Administration ordered the "Gross Negligence" thing changed to something not illegal.

The FBI investigations actually show Hillary did in fact break laws that are felonies.

An Inspector General report also confirms.

Look it up.

The educated answers are all over the place 😎

a reply to: subfab

She wasn't found guilty of a crime because she was never put on trial. Obama, the DOJ and FBI protected her by refusing to indite and prosecute her sorry ass. The fact she hasn't been found guilty, in her case, is irrelevant.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: subfab

Yet apparently you will not get that educated answer from our OP.

Wrong again as usual 😎

a reply to: Lumenari

a link supporting your point that comey found her guilty would be nice.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: subfab

She wasn't found guilty of a crime because she was never put on trial. Obama, the DOJ and FBI protected her by refusing to indite and prosecute her sorry ass. The fact she hasn't been found guilty, in her case, is irrelevant.

it is relevant.
if found not guilty for the crimes the original poster suggests then she can never be tried for the same thing again.
i'm not a lawyer and could be misunderstanding this legal situation.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: subfab

Recent sworn testimonies from former and fired FBI/DOJ people say she violated the "Gross Negligence" statutes but others in the Obama Administration ordered the "Gross Negligence" thing changed to something not illegal.

The FBI investigations actually show Hillary did in fact break laws that are felonies.

An Inspector General report also confirms.

Look it up.

The educated answers are all over the place 😎

links supporting your point that she was found guilty of a crime.

a reply to: subfab

😆

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: subfab

😆

so you don't have a link then?
okay i guess it's time to move on.