More Classified Emails uncovered - Hillary Clinton
Judicial Watch Uncovers More Classified Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Unsecure Email System - MARCH 21, 2019
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today announced it received 756 pages of newly uncovered emails that were among the materials former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to delete or destroy, several of which were classified and were transmitted over her unsecure, non-“state.gov” email system.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly stated that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in another Judicial Watch case, she declared under penalty of perjury in 2015 that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”
In 2017, the FBI uncovered 72,000 pages of documents Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose. Until the court intervened and established a new deadline, the State Department had been slow-walking the release of those documents at a rate that would have required Judicial Watch and the American people to wait until at least 2020 to see all the releasable Clinton material. The production of documents in this case is now concluded with the FBI being only able to recover or find approximately 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails Hillary Clinton took and tried to destroy.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on May 6, 2015, after the State Department failed to respond to a March 4, 2015, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)) seeking:
All emails sent and received by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as Secretary of State, as well as all emails by other State Department employees to Secretary Clinton regarding her non-“state.gov” email address.
This final batch of Clinton emails includes five new classified emails and communications with controversial figures Lanny Davis and Sidney Blumenthal.
On April 27, 2011, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair sent classified information discussing Palestinian issues to Clinton’s personal unsecure email account.
On May 19, 2011, Blair again sent classified information to Clinton’s personal unsecure email account discussing a “speech.”
A classified email exchange between Blair and Clinton took place from January 16, 2009 (while George W. Bush was still president) and January 24, 2009. The subject line is “Re: Gaza.” Blair on January 16, 2009, relayed information he learned from Middle East leaders and noted that he wanted to get something “resolved before Tuesday” (when Obama would be sworn in as president). Clinton responded to Blair on January 19, 2009, writing “Tony – We are finally moving and I am looking forward to talking w you as soon as I’m confirmed, tomorrow or Wednesday at the latest. Your emails are very helpful so pls continue to use this address,” [email protected]. Blair followed up by saying “It would be great if we could talk before any announcements are made.”
Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane sent Clinton classified information, apparently during early 2009. The subject line of the email is redacted, but the text appears to show a discussion on information about Iraq.
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].”
In a September 18, 2010, email, Davis emails Clinton to tell her that “As soon as I wrote last email, I reverted to my old role as your crisis manager and worrier about you, read the word ‘optics’ I suddenly felt – oops. I am registered under FARA for one or more foreign governments or businesses. I don’t think it would look right. I want to avoid any even slight chance of misperception.” Clinton replies, “Thx for looking out for me, my friend. I’ll tell Cheryl to stand down.” Davis replied, “100% off-the-record.”
An email with the subject line “Clinton-Ivanishvili Meeting” shows a meeting with pro-Putin, Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, who was reportedly involved in a Russia-rigged election for president of the Republic of Georgia. On May 29, 2012, longtime Clinton political operative Craig T. Smith emailed Cheryl Mills, asking if a meeting between Secretary Clinton and Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili was “happening,” saying: “Would be a good thing if it can work out.” Mills tells Smith she’ll revert and forwards the email to Jake Sullivan, Human Abedin and Lona Valmoro, asking them if they were setting up the meeting, noting that it involved “meeting with the opposition” and asking what she could tell Smith. Valmoro responds that the meeting with Ivanishvili was “on the schedule.”
An undated email from former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott to Clinton discusses that “VP” Joe Biden was “thinking seriously about a Biden-Putin Commission.”
The documents reveal that Clinton had been assigned an official government email address with which she could have conducted government business, [email protected]. She also reportedly had additional government addresses at her disposal: [email protected] and [email protected], neither of which were configured to send or receive emails.
The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also include an email to Tamera Luzzatto, former chief of staff during Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Senator for New York. Clinton talks about getting “a secure computer set up soon.”
Tamera–this is my new address, but, pls know, I cannot check it during the day unless I leave my office. I hope to have a secure computer set up soon to be able to get email during the workday. Much love, H.
On October 29, 2009, a Clinton Foundation employee and close Clinton adviser Sid Blumenthal forwarded a proposal for a commercial contract related to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from retired CIA officer-turned-contractor Gary Berntsen, to Clinton (copying Cheryl Mills), saying that Berntsen had been “unable to break through the bureaucracy with it.” Mills then forwarded the email to Jake Sullivan. Blumenthal noted that “Cody [Shearer] and I are following up.” Blumenthal and Shearer were both implicated in the creation of the Obama administration’s anti-Trump Russia “collusion” counterintelligence operation by providing “reports” relating to Trump-Russia collusion to the U.S. Government.
On January 29, 2009, Blumenthal emailed Secretary Clinton a memo he titled “Good Cop, Bad Cop”, where Blumenthal informs Clinton that his sources tell him that an “attack” on the appointment by Obama of former Sen. George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East was “coordinated by Jewish institutional leaders and carefully scripted.” Also cited is Mitchell’s “Arab descent” as making him “politically vulnerable.” Blumenthal told Clinton that any conversations she had with Netanyahu “flows directly and instantly back to top (U.S.) Jewish leadership.” Further on in his memo, Blumenthal says that Netanyahu and “Jewish leadership” should “be expected to use political means, including outsourcing personal attacks” to counter Obama administration moves and said Netanyahu was “deeply connected to political networks in the U.S. – media, Jewish groups, Republican leaders, and right-wing Christian” organizations. To provide a “heat shield” from Netanyahu’s attacks, Blumenthal advises Clinton that Obama should hire a “bad cop” who is “organically tied to the President” and a “political appointee, Jewish, considered a true friend of Israel…” Clinton responded by saying, “Thanks for these. And I will call you in the next few days.”
In an October 20, 2012, email exchange between top State Department and Clinton Foundation officials discussing arrangements for Bill and Hillary’s trip to Haiti. That trip focused on the opening of the Caracol Industrial Park, funded by a $300 million+ grant from USAID. The Caracol Park came to be seen as a hugely wasteful disaster, that was supposed to create 65,000 jobs for Haitians but as of January 2015 only produced 4,500.
On January 25, 2009, Chelsea Clinton’s high school friend Nicole Davison (now Nicole Davison Fox), made a hiring recommendation to Secretary Clinton for the State Department. Clinton forwarded Davison’s recommendation on to Cheryl Mills, telling Mills to “follow up” on the “wonderful recommendation.” Mills replied, “K.”
Maggie Williams, campaign manager of Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential bid, forwarded to Clinton a note sent to her by then-managing partner of the Gallup Organization, which said that “Gallup Polls suggest Obama’s plan to expedite withdrawal from Iraq could help improve some residents’ opinion [referring to Iraqis’ opinion of US leadership.]” Williams proposed to Secretary Clinton sending a group of high-level State Department officials to Gallup “for a presentation”, including Jack Lew, Jim Steinberg, Cheryl Mills and Lissa Muscatine. Williams would later suggest adding Jake Sullivan and Anne-Marie Slaughter to the Gallup presentation.
On February 18, 2009, chairman of telecom company Centurylink, Bill Owens, emailed Clinton (copying Abedin) asking if he could get a meeting with the secretary during her upcoming trip to China. Abedin responded, saying that she was talking to Owens’ assistant to “arrange for the two of you to visit for a few minutes” during Clinton’s trip. Owens had been appointed Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. After retiring from the Navy in 1996, he became chairman of defense contractor SAIC.
In a January 3, 2011-March 1, 2011, email thread, Susanne Helmsley, a staffer at the World Economic Forum (ie, Davos) emailed leftist Christian writer-activist Jim Wallis to inform him that former British PM Gordon Brown would not be invited to the upcoming Davos meeting, because “our policy (and this makes Davos distinctive) is to only invite people who are still in power.” She also noted that the “theme” of the upcoming Davos meeting would be “Shared Norms for the New Reality”, noting that “the discussions of values will be a major element in Davos, since norms are only sustainable if built on values.” Wallis mentions his prior partnership with Bangladeshi banker Mohammad Yunus, who would be charged the next year with tax fraud and embezzling from the bank he’d founded, Grameen Bank.
On five occasions Clinton’s secretary, Lauren Jiloty, sent Clinton’s sensitive daily itinerary to her on her unsecure email account.
On January 29, 2009, State Department official Ashley Yehl received a Judicial Watch press release from Associated Press reporter Matt Lee about a lawsuit Judicial Watch filed on behalf of State Department official David Rodearmel challenging Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State. Yehl forwarded the email on to several other State people, who in turn forwarded it on to State’s Legal Office and official James Thessin. Thessin sent it along to Cheryl Mills who sent it on to Secretary Clinton, assuring Clinton that the Department of Justice would defend her against the Judicial Watch lawsuit.
“We continue to uncover classified information mishandled by Hillary Clinton in emails that she tried to hide or destroy. This is further evidence of the urgency for the DOJ to finally undertake a complete and legitimate criminal investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Attorney General Barr should immediately order a new investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal.”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-roo ... il-system/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch
"Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. "
"The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.
Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record."
"Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. "
"The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.
Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record."
Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia's criticism, the thing is, this is not a conspiracy and have heard Tim Pool give them credit. I would expect wikipedia to have a somewhat left wing bias as well. Tim Pool is a democrat, so I doubt he said it just for the hell of it. It was a freedom of information suit, it's 100% not a conspiracy nor a fake report.
To add, most media these day are questionable, bias is a norm, and left wing sources constantly used are also bias and produce garbage from time to time. There isn't much of a bias in this report and it's not a fabrication.
"Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. "
"The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.
Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record."
Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia's criticism, the thing is, this is not a conspiracy and have heard Tim Pool give them credit. I would expect wikipedia to have a somewhat left wing bias as well. Tim Pool is a democrat, so I doubt he said it just for the hell of it. It was a freedom of information suit, it's 100% not a conspiracy nor a fake report.
To add, most media these day are questionable, bias is a norm, and left wing sources constantly used are also bias and produce garbage from time to time. There isn't much of a bias in this report and it's not a fabrication.
I didn't post that for your sake as I know you won't take anything I say seriously, but rather for other people looking at the thread so they will know to question the source.
"Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group[1] and self-styled watchdog group[2][3] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. "
"The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[1]"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.
Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record."
Yes, I'm aware of Wikipedia's criticism, the thing is, this is not a conspiracy and have heard Tim Pool give them credit. I would expect wikipedia to have a somewhat left wing bias as well. Tim Pool is a democrat, so I doubt he said it just for the hell of it. It was a freedom of information suit, it's 100% not a conspiracy nor a fake report.
To add, most media these day are questionable, bias is a norm, and left wing sources constantly used are also bias and produce garbage from time to time. There isn't much of a bias in this report and it's not a fabrication.
Thank you Crimadella for the clarification.
Media Bias/Fact Check
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and the owner of the site, Dave Van Zandt, as an "armchair media analyst". Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence". The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check
Judicial Watch is a courageous organization that does the investigative jobs the mainstream media should be doing, but don't because they are just shills for the Democrats. JW has been extremely effective at exposing systematic corruption and criminality all through the left, and so they are of course violently attacked at every turn.
_________________
There Are Four Lights!
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... tch-765081
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/judicial-watch
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... orgid=3960
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/p ... al%20Watch
https://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/judici ... nton-lies/
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statem ... and-near-/
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 13202.html
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-satan-clubs/
Sounds legit.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/judicial-watch
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... orgid=3960
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/p ... al%20Watch
https://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/judici ... nton-lies/
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statem ... and-near-/
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 13202.html
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/irs-satan-clubs/
Sounds legit.

I wonder just how many of those sources are left wing? Most, all?
But what's your real goal? You're not even from the US. Why are lefties in Canada protesting a US president? And, pertaining to this 1 article I posted, are you insisting that the law suit that they claim they won to release this information never even occured? Sounds a bit ridiculous to me, your attempts that is, as well as your countries attempts to protest a president that Canada has absolutely no say in.
Canada's odd protesting habits make me question if we should really legalize marijuana in the US, some of the folks over there do some wacky things, lol. I do like watching the slav that goes to their Trump protests and asks them why they are protesting a US president, he makes them look quite stupid.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,961
Location: Long Island, New York
On November 8, 2016 the voters of the United States rendered their verdict on Hillary. The verdict was that between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Hillary was the greater of two evils. Enough said.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman