Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Abedin Emails Reveal Additional Instances of Clinton Donors Receiving Special Tre

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Abedin Emails Reveal Additional Instances of Clinton Donors Receiving Special Tre

    I wonder how much information hasn't been released yet....

    Judicial Watch today released 448 pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing new incidents of Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, providing special State Department treatment to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and political campaigns.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...artment-state/

  • #2
    Clinton corruption runs deeper than the Grand Canyon. What's new there? That she won't be tried and imprisoned for it is a national travesty.

    Comment


    • #3
      Conflict of interest and a violation of her position, I've been saying this since day one, she needs to go to jail.

      Originally posted by Nichols View Post
      I wonder how much information hasn't been released yet....

      Judicial Watch today released 448 pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing new incidents of Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, providing special State Department treatment to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and political campaigns.

      http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...artment-state/
      My worst jump story:
      My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
      As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
      No lie.

      ~
      "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
      -2 Commando Jumpmaster

      Comment


      • #4
        SHE isn't pResident boys.

        Are you worn out from TRYING to defend your tRump?
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
          SHE isn't pResident boys.

          Are you worn out from TRYING to defend your tRump?
          This isn't about Trump, Clinton losing the election doesn't give here a free pass on breaking the law.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            SHE isn't pResident boys.

            Are you worn out from TRYING to defend your tRump?
            Quick! Look over there! Russians!

            Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
            "A foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." Ulysses S. Grant

            Comment


            • #7
              It's telling isn't it? Billy Cigar Clinton gives a speech for a Russian company for a big pay check, shortly thereafter his wife, then Sec. Of State signs off if a deal giving Russia uranium from the US.
              But that's no problem now that she lost the election.
              Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
              Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                This isn't about Trump, Clinton losing the election doesn't give here a free pass on breaking the law.

                If you actually read the source carefully, you will see that it shows nothing that the FBI did not already know. These papers came after a FOIA lawsuit which means that they are may be "news" to us but not to the FBI who went over the emails. In fact many of the link direct you to older webpages.

                If the point is that there is corruption in politics, I have no problem to accept it and say that Clinton is a typical case. But, unfortunately, this type of corruption is not illegal. Clinton accepted donations and the Congress monitored them. This was part of the deal to have Clinton become Secretary of State, and it was actually much more transparent compared to the situation in which for profit companies which belong to people like Kushner make deals without revealing to the Congress and public any piece of information.

                Notice also the extreme biased language of the link

                The link claims that Clinton said that (paraphrase) "as far as I know there are no other emails" and that more emails were found later. According to the link this was proof that Clinton was lying. This claim does not make sense. When people qualify statements with phrases, such as, "as far as I know" you need to provide more evidence to show that the inaccuracy of their statement was deliberate and therefore a lie.
                When you have 50,000 emails spanning across 8 years (notice some emails were sent in 2009) it is easy to initially miss a small number of emails.
                If a honest investigator really wants to show that there was INTENT to hide these new emails, first he needs to read them and see if they reveal something could would establish a motive to lie about their existence.
                Now read the six "new" emails to see that they did not reveal anything worth of hiding it.





                As for the rest of the emails If somebody from the Clinton Foundation tells Abedin to be nice to a donor, it is not illegal. Abedin, like Clinton, made the stupid mistake of combining personal and government emails in their server. So, finding in this server emails which are linked to the Clinton Foundation is natural. And as long as it is legal to be both Secretary of State and president of a nonprofit organization, it means that the mere act of having public relations with prominent donors while you are a Secretary is legal.
                On the other hand, if you find emails to show that Clinton used the Department of State services to provide benefit her donors in a quid pro quo deal, then you have evidence for prosecuting her.
                Last edited by pamak; 19 Jul 17, 18:40.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post
                  If you actually read the source carefully, you will see that it shows nothing that the FBI did not already know. These papers came after a FOIA lawsuit which means that they are may be "news" to us but not to the FBI who went over the emails. In fact many of the link direct you to older webpages.
                  If you actually read the OP, your above statement is pointless.....here is what I posted:

                  "I wonder how much information hasn't been released yet.... "

                  In other threads you have shown that you don't read links or at the very most skim over them briefly. You are now showing that you don't even bother to read over a sentence.....a single sentence before you post...
                  Last edited by Nichols; 19 Jul 17, 18:58.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=Nichols;3384116]If you actually read the OP, your above statement is pointless.....

                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                    I wonder how much information hasn't been released yet.... [/QUOTE]

                    In other threads you have shown that you don't read links or at the very most skim over them briefly. You are now showing that you don't even bother to read over a sentence.....a single sentence before you post...
                    Actually I read the sentence. It is just that you do not understand what I am saying and you so not read YOUR LINK.
                    This is from YOUR link (last sentence)

                    “I’m not sure how much more evidence of pay for play, classified information mishandling, and influence peddling from Clinton’s email server one would need to show a serious criminal investigation is required,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
                    And I am saying that they have not revealed "more evidence" to show a need for a criminal investigation. These emails were not "new" to the FBI which was responsible for the Clinton investigation and which had the task to evaluate if such emails reveal a need to investigate a scheme of of "pay for play."
                    So why don't you read first the links you post before answering my comments?

                    And why don't you use your brain to see that the court decision was actually decision which forced the State Department to release these emails in batches according to the FOIA requirements. It is OBVIOUS that there are more emails which have not been released to the PUBLIC because time is needed to create redacted documents. But all this is irrelevant to the belief which some people seem to hold that these "new" revelations justify a criminal investigation! These emails are not new to the FBI, so the information they reveal to YOU or the public does not create a need about any new criminal investigation!

                    And based on what I wrote in the previous paragraph, it is certain that in a few months there will be a release of a new batch of redacted emails . And the site will come again to say "new Clinton emails." And some people who do not understand what they read will think that there are "new revelations" that expose Clinton's corruption and will demand the opening of a new criminal investigation.
                    Last edited by pamak; 19 Jul 17, 20:11.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post
                      And I am saying that they have not revealed "more evidence" to show a need for a criminal investigation.
                      Is English your second or third language? Serious question.

                      This is what I said:


                      Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                      I wonder how much information hasn't been released yet....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        Is English your second or third language? Serious question.

                        This is what I said:

                        Originally Posted by Nichols
                        I wonder how much information hasn't been released yet....

                        You also posted a LINK which made specific claims. So you have to decide what you want:

                        Do you want us to read the links YOU posted, or do you simply want us to read your one-line comment about them?
                        Because if you want us to read our links, then be prepared to hear some criticism which may not be related to everything you say.

                        On top of that, I replied to the following of what YOU SAID.

                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        This isn't about Trump, Clinton losing the election doesn't give here a free pass on breaking the law.
                        which has the claim that Clinton broke the law, and in the context of this thread it implies that your link reveals information that Clinton broke the law.
                        So, why do not YOU learn how to read English before trying to be Mr smarty pants ?
                        Last edited by pamak; 19 Jul 17, 22:51.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Clinton broke a bunch of laws (starting with 18 USC §1924, then 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). That one carries a 10 year 100,000 fine sentence. Then add 44 U.S. Code § 3106, unlawful destruction of records), not to mention federal regulations (like Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d).), in setting up a personal, private, e-mail server and using it to conduct virtually all of her business on it as Secretary of State. She repeatedly, and knowingly (although she has denied it as any criminal would) sent and received sensitive and classified information on this unsecure server.
                          In addition, when discovered, she told the government what e-mails she would give them, scrubbing the server before handing anything over. That too was a criminal act.
                          Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 19 Jul 17, 23:45.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            Clinton broke a bunch of laws (starting with 18 USC §1924, then 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). That one carries a 10 year 100,000 fine sentence. Then add 44 U.S. Code § 3106, unlawful destruction of records), not to mention federal regulations (like Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d).), in setting up a personal, private, e-mail server and using it to conduct virtually all of her business on it as Secretary of State. She repeatedly, and knowingly (although she has denied it as any criminal would) sent and received sensitive and classified information on this unsecure server.
                            In addition, when discovered, she told the government what e-mails she would give them, scrubbing the server before handing anything over. That too was a criminal act.
                            There is no way one can have such a broad discussion in a single thread that mixes all different claims against her. If you want to create a different thread and talk about a specific law which Clinton broke, you are welcome and I may give my 2 cent.
                            And something else: my intervention in this (and some other) "anti-Clinton" threads does not have the purpose of supporting her actions legally or politically.. My purpose is to challenge deceitful "opinions" or "facts" or websites which abuse basic rules of logic. The site posted in this thread was one such case for reasons I explained in previous posts. I have no problem to hear people accuse Clinton. I have problem with those people or organizations or sites which do it by abusing logic.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post
                              There is no way one can have such a broad discussion in a single thread that mixes all different claims against her. If you want to create a different thread and talk about a specific law which Clinton broke, you are welcome and I may give my 2 cent.
                              And something else: my intervention in this (and some other) "anti-Clinton" threads does not have the purpose of supporting her actions legally or politically.. My purpose is to challenge deceitful "opinions" or "facts" or websites which abuse basic rules of logic. The site posted in this thread was one such case for reasons I explained in previous posts. I have no problem to hear people accuse Clinton. I have problem with those people or organizations or sites which do it by abusing logic.
                              When did you become an admin here? I posted up specifics about the topic at hand. USC 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f) is specifically directed at the Abedin portion of her law breaking (although it also applies to one of her lawyers that had copies in his safe, among other people as well).

                              I could care less what your "purpose" in posting is so long as it isn't trolling either. By giving specific examples of laws Clinton clearly broke, the argument is made that she should have been charged and tried for her illegal acts. It is likely she'd have been found guilty too.
                              But, she wasn't. There is no abuse of logic there. That is a reasonable string of thinking.... Here are US laws regarding government use of e-mail and employee responsibilities. Here is what Clinton did. Comparing her acts to those laws it is reasonable to conclude that it was likely she violated them. Hence, the conclusion reached was she probably committed multiple misdemeanors and felonies by her actions and should have been charged and tried.
                              That she wasn't gives the appearance of favoritism and corruption within government.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X