Emails Supply New Evidence of Hillary Clinton Pay-to-Play Scheme

Odd this hasn't popped up yet. Well Judicial Watch seems to be getting a steady flow of docs now on a lot of things, the tarmac meeting being one of the biggest. I guess I'm not surprised this isn't headlines as there appears to be a LOT coming out on Clinton right now and there are obvious deflection efforts taking place.

Well here we have more emails that HRC decided not to show the investigating team when she was u Dee scrutiny for her email practices.

Just the fact that these emails exist is enough to reopen the investigation and nail her to the wall. But just existing isn't the good part....its all of the obvious pay to play going on as well as more Classified materials having been sent.

Sucks when you hire a piss poor IT staff to clean up a tornado of chaos and lies.....and they forget to make sure it's really all gone.

Story

Former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin used her personal email account to transmit classified documents and coordinate favors for Clinton donors, according to emails obtained Wednesday by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents as part of a lawsuit filed after the State Department failed to respond to a March 2015 Freedom of Information Act request.

The newly obtained documents include 91 email exchanges involving Clinton when she was secretary of state that were not turned over to the State Department, the group said.

It said the documents contradict Clinton’s claim that, “as far as she knew,” she had turned over all of her government emails, sent via a personal email account using a private server while she was secretary of state.

The emails reveal multiple instances in which Abedin used her personal account to send and receive classified documents as well as arrange personal favors for Clinton donors and political allies on behalf of the 2016 Democratic nominee for president, Judicial Watch said.

“Pay to play, classified information mishandling, influence peddling, cover-ups—these new emails show why the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s conduct must be resumed,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a prepared statement.

In one example, Miguel Lausell, a Puerto Rican telecom executive and donor of over $1 million to the Clinton Library, requested through Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band that a specific candidate be considered for the U.S. ambassadorship to the Dominican Republic.

The following day in April 2009, a Clinton aide passed Lausell’s message to the secretary of state’s special assistants and instructed them to “make sure there is a response.” It remains unclear whether the person in question received the ambassadorship, as the name is redacted.

And here is a link to JW document archive....there are a LOT on this particular topic that have been recently released so feel free to comb through and put up what you find!

Link to JW document archive

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The media woukdnt even report what was contained in the FBI reports during the #ing election. They're sure as hell not going to report on anything now

SHOCKER

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The media woukdnt even report what was contained in the FBI reports during the #ing election. They're sure as hell not going to report on anything now

Hell wouldn't report?!?!?! They actually went on air and said reading the emails on WikiLeaks or any emails of Clintons period was a crime and NO ONE should read them....

COVER UP MUCH???

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The media woukdnt even report what was contained in the FBI reports during the #ing election. They're sure as hell not going to report on anything now

Very true.....

Didn't she testify under oath to the fact that all of the deleted emails had nothing to do with work and she produced every one she had? Wouldn't this prove perjury? Not sure how she couldn't be prosecuted for this or how she can get out of it.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The media woukdnt even report what was contained in the FBI reports during the #ing election. They're sure as hell not going to report on anything now

Hell wouldn't report?!?!?! They actually went on air and said reading the emails on WikiLeaks or any emails of Clintons period was a crime and NO ONE should read them....

COVER UP MUCH???

Good thing these are legally released through the FOIA request then....

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The media woukdnt even report what was contained in the FBI reports during the #ing election. They're sure as hell not going to report on anything now

Snopes doesn't the say that the story is untrue ... it says nothing ... the story simply don't exist.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Shouldn't be too difficult to nail down the result of the ambassador in question. That would be actual evidence. Lots of plausible deniability written in the edges.

However, the fact that the emails exist are damning.

This administration really doesn't understand the concept of subtlety does it? It's announced that Mueller is seeking a grand jury in regards to the Russia probe and then all of a sudden, "Oh look at all this stuff being leaked about Hillary!"

Also, the Trump administration may not want to be pointing fingers when it comes to pay to play. I mean of course there's the obvious deal with Saudi Arabia, but it seems like the only qualification that most of Trump's cabinet has is giving a lot of money to Trump and the GOP.

This perfectly demonstrates the appalling double-standard at work. We have volumes of e-mails that appear to provide prima fascia evidence of numerous corruption-related crimes: bribery, influence peddling, pay-to-play, obstruction of justice. And not only are they not calling for an investigation, but they're going out of their way to ignore the story.

But with Trump, we have no evidence connecting him to any crimes; the handful of libs who realize that "colluding with Russia" isn't a real crime struggle to provide any compelling argument of what crimes Trump or his people might have committed. The best effort was probably the uncompelling argument that Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey. It's uncompelling because you need to get past the facts that Trump had the authority to fire Comey, and Comey was just a director who wasn't investigating anything himself, so how could his firing obstruct any investigation? Other arguments have been much lamer & desperate, like trying to say that Trump Jr.'s meeting somehow invokes campaign-finance laws, or laws related to civilians interfering in diplomacy.

But still, we get an investigation just to see if any crimes can be found. Yes folks, that is a witch hunt.

And that is why we can't trust the Feds to obtain justice.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I didn't know Hillary played Destiny.

If you ask me when your source says Clinton said "as far as she knew" the alarm bells went off. The mere saying 'as far as she knew' seems dubious, just like terms as 'I don't recall' or 'this isn't the real issue.' All politicians live by the rule of the four R's-Rebuttal,remorse, resignation or recoil (fired). If the rebuttal doesn't work, then that soon turns into a remorse, and if the previous two plans don't work it's time to hang up the boots or get your bum kicked out of the job.

Look at this Trump staffer who got fired from his job, He only held the reins for ten days and I've already forgotten his name. I'm thinking Gnocchi (no offense to my friends from the Boot) but he had no remorse, no rebuttal and he got the recoil before he resigned. The sad thing is those behind the scenes in the left and right are being run by the dubious power mongers and the little guys with genuinely great ideas have been swept under the rug.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Its not exactly a leak when its been released through a FOIA lawsuit. In fact not only is it a legit release but one that had to he forced through a suit. Believe what you will though I doubt anything I say, no matter how logical and factual, will dissuade you right?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

Didn't she testify under oath to the fact that all of the deleted emails had nothing to do with work and she produced every one she had? Wouldn't this prove perjury? Not sure how she couldn't be prosecuted for this or how she can get out of it.

Because she didn't intend to commit perjury?

a reply to: RickyD

And who's more or less in control of FOIA releases? *Gasp* The Executive Branch. The timing on this is way too convenient. It means either one of two things. Either: A.) The Trump administration chose to send these documents at this time based on the current political climate or; B.) Judicial Watch has had these documents for a while but they're simply in the pocket of the Trump White House.

It's just like Wikileaks the other day. They pretty much revealed themselves to be a propaganda arm for the government.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: RickyD

And who's more or less in control of FOIA releases? *Gasp* The Executive Branch. The timing on this is way too convenient. It means either one of two things. Either: A.) The Trump administration chose to send these documents at this time based on the current political climate or; B.) Judicial Watch has had these documents for a while but they're simply in the pocket of the Trump White House.

It's just like Wikileaks the other day. They pretty much revealed themselves to be a propaganda arm for the government.

They are under order to release them 500 at a time since 2015....so ubless this was all scripted 2 years ago the timing is only suspect in regards to new Trump stories coming out.

Basically HRC and the DNC know exactly when the batches are going to be released because of the suit, so they ramp up the Trump Russia thing just before the docs come out to throw shade in the opposite direction.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
This administration really doesn't understand the concept of subtlety does it? It's announced that Mueller is seeking a grand jury in regards to the Russia probe and then all of a sudden, "Oh look at all this stuff being leaked about Hillary!"

Also, the Trump administration may not want to be pointing fingers when it comes to pay to play. I mean of course there's the obvious deal with Saudi Arabia, but it seems like the only qualification that most of Trump's cabinet has is giving a lot of money to Trump and the GOP.

So the ongoing sh!tstorm regarding the Clinton pay-to-play scheme is somehow Trump's baby now?

Cool story bruh!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Let's see. Whose actions are more likely to be an attempt at deflecting? The administration that is literally in control of the information and has been trying to control the flow of information since Day One? Or the veteran law enforcement officer with such a sparkling reputation that both Dems and Repubs agreed on him near unanimously?

a reply to: Jonjonj

So it's just a coincidence that this all comes out right after Mueller not only goes after Trump's financials (Trump's line in the sand) but also requests a grand jury?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Hillary fan, but this has the Trump administration's fingerprints all over it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So you're saying that Trump got Judical Watch to file the FOIA on his behalf, then follow up with a lawsuit to eventually get these documents? Repeat that in your head a few times while you think about that...does it seem likely that Judical Watch is working with Trump? I doubt very much that they are, but hey if you can prove it I'm game to listen.