Clinton Email Scandal: Here’s One Thing Hillary Was Trying To Hide (editorial)

Clinton Email Scandal: Here’s One Thing Hillary Was Trying To Hide

Corruption: Newly released documents reveal part of what Hillary Clinton was hoping to hide by using a personal email account for official government business. With the Clintons, it’s all about building an empire.

Judicial Watch released 276 documents Tuesday that had been obtained through one of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. Among the material are emails that show the State Department under Clinton was coordinating with the Clinton Foundation staff and how foreign governments sought favor through the intertwined State Department-Clinton Foundation link.

As we’ve said before, it looks as if Clinton used her job at the State Department to funnel cash into her family’s nonprofit organization.

The latest batch of emails shows that foreign interests in Libya and Syria were among the many that took advantage of the State’s close ties to the Clinton Foundation. It was previously discovered that governments in Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman made donations to the foundation in return for, as far as we can tell, favorable treatment by the State Department.

Judicial Watch reminds us that the Clinton Foundation has “accepted millions of dollars from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state,” including “a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state (that) violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration.”

Click link for remainder of op-ed.

Its looking like Clinton's problems are now getting worse now that new emails are showing a link between Clinton, foreign countries and donations to the Clinton foundation. The fact she was wheeling and dealing 2 days after the Libyan attacks with a member of the Libyan national Congress about donations to the Clinton foundation instead of dealing with 4 dead Americans says a lot about her ethics and lack of them.

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop with former President Clinton and his participation and if any criminal wrongdoing occurred. If she becomes President I see secrets and access being sold to the highest bidders.

If the DOJ opts not to prosecute and its based on political considerations I think the Democratic party is done for a while.

As a reminder, this is an op-ed article.


* - Judicial Watch

a reply to: Xcathdra

As we’ve said before, it looks as if Clinton used her job at the State Department to funnel cash into her family’s nonprofit organization.

You don't really think she (or any politician for that matter) is really about spreading democracy and humanitarian aid, do you? Its always about the friggin money, power and control of territory, people and resources.
The whole US government is being covered for by keeping our noses buried in Hillarys uh, (ahem) 'server'.

a reply to: intrptr

All the more reason her arse needs to be in a prison and not in the Oval office.

If she walks free, America has bigger problems than ISIS!

.......... but she'll still be elected (or selected) POTUS in November.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is an op-ed piece, but there still are those pesky facts.
- Like the fact that the emails of the Clinton Foundation have been subpoenaed (there is an investigation going on and it relates to corruption).
- Cheryl Mills sent classified information to the Clinton Foundation while she worked at the State Department.

Why would the State Department send classified information to the Clinton Foundation?
There is the possibility that the Clinton Foundation was using that information to shake down foreign governments for 'contributions'. There are already indications that there was a 'pay to play' thing going on between State Department, the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Already been posted. It's garbage. But thanks for checking g before bringing it to us a second time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: butcherguy

The investigation going on relates to security not corruption.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Clinton Email Scandal: Here’s One Thing Hillary Was Trying To Hide

Corruption: Newly released documents reveal part of what Hillary Clinton was hoping to hide by using a personal email account for official government business. With the Clintons, it’s all about building an empire.

Judicial Watch released 276 documents Tuesday that had been obtained through one of its Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. Among the material are emails that show the State Department under Clinton was coordinating with the Clinton Foundation staff and how foreign governments sought favor through the intertwined State Department-Clinton Foundation link.

As we’ve said before, it looks as if Clinton used her job at the State Department to funnel cash into her family’s nonprofit organization.

The latest batch of emails shows that foreign interests in Libya and Syria were among the many that took advantage of the State’s close ties to the Clinton Foundation. It was previously discovered that governments in Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman made donations to the foundation in return for, as far as we can tell, favorable treatment by the State Department.

Judicial Watch reminds us that the Clinton Foundation has “accepted millions of dollars from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state,” including “a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state (that) violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration.”

Click link for remainder of op-ed.

Its looking like Clinton's problems are now getting worse now that new emails are showing a link between Clinton, foreign countries and donations to the Clinton foundation. The fact she was wheeling and dealing 2 days after the Libyan attacks with a member of the Libyan national Congress about donations to the Clinton foundation instead of dealing with 4 dead Americans says a lot about her ethics and lack of them.

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop with former President Clinton and his participation and if any criminal wrongdoing occurred. If she becomes President I see secrets and access being sold to the highest bidders.

If the DOJ opts not to prosecute and its based on political considerations I think the Democratic party is done for a while.

As a reminder, this is an op-ed article.


* - Judicial Watch

This is basically what I was talking about in other threads. I expected she was giving financial "aid" (read payoffs) to foreign politicians and despots) and they were donating a percentage back to the Clinton Foundation. It seemed so blatantly obvious LOL. 6 billion or so UP in the Clinton Foundation and 6 billion plus MISSING in the state department. Doesn't seem hard to connect the dots...

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

The investigation going on relates to security not corruption.

But security breaches are a form of corruption.

The Hillary Clinton for President Campaign said so.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Already been posted. It's garbage. But thanks for checking g before bringing it to us a second time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and since they dont have the same title it comes back negative when you search.

Its not garbage.

I'll refrain from coming down to your level.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

The investigation going on relates to security not corruption.

It is a corruption probe.
By the FBI and the State Department Inspector General.
FOX News

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Already been posted. It's garbage. But thanks for checking g before bringing it to us a second time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and since they dont have the same title it comes back negative when you search.

Its not garbage.

I'll refrain from coming down to your level.

That is the latest method for the Hillary supporters are using to discredit real information.
The same member used this phrase to describe the truth yesterday:

Reviewed their content and dismissed them as bovine crap in a steaming pile.

a reply to: butcherguy

You have to find it ironic that you speak of "real information", yet post a link to Fox News in which they make a claim based on "three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News."

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: intrptr

All the more reason her arse needs to be in a prison and not in the Oval office.

If she walks free, America has bigger problems than ISIS!

Walks free? They protect her from the highest pinnacles. They're going to place her in the highest office.

That is more obvious to people here, ATS members actually look a little closer at the real world cake, not just the decorations.

Arrest warrants issued for Bush and Obama for crimes against Humanity

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

You have to find it ironic that you speak of "real information", yet post a link to Fox News in which they make a claim based on "three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News."

That is right....
When did we learn the identity of 'Deep Throat'?
Did we ever learn his identity?
Deep Throat was the unnamed source of Woodward and Bernstein that broke the Watergate Scandal wide open.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

You have to find it ironic that you speak of "real information", yet post a link to Fox News in which they make a claim based on "three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News."

That is right....
When did we learn the identity of 'Deep Throat'?
Did we ever learn his identity?
Deep Throat was the unnamed source of Woodward and Bernstein that broke the Watergate Scandal wide open.

That is possible, but still not even close to be considered "real information". It's hearsay from a media source known to be questionable in their ability to tell the truth.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

You have to find it ironic that you speak of "real information", yet post a link to Fox News in which they make a claim based on "three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News."

That is right....
When did we learn the identity of 'Deep Throat'?
Did we ever learn his identity?
Deep Throat was the unnamed source of Woodward and Bernstein that broke the Watergate Scandal wide open.

That is possible, but still not even close to be considered "real information". It's hearsay from a media source known to be questionable in their ability to tell the truth.

Catherine Herridge?
Here is her bio on Wikipedia: Link
I see no disputes with her reporting.

Now you would probably accept 'Dateline NBC' as a source..... Google search that name.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Name one single news agency that'll even call her on it.

She's the Chosen One.

a reply to: butcherguy

You misunderstand.

It is possible that these anonymous Fox sources could break open a Hillary scandal, but Fox cannot be trusted as they have a problem telling the truth. They could be making this story up for all we know.

That is why it is laughable that you say some about real information, yet post a story from Fox with absolutely no sources.

Catherine Herridge could be telling the truth, or she may not be. Also, she is not the only one that contributed to that piece.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

You misunderstand.

It is possible that these anonymous Fox sources could break open a Hillary scandal, but Fox cannot be trusted as they have a problem telling the truth. They could be making this story up for all we know.

That is why it is laughable that you say some about real information, yet post a story from Fox with absolutely no sources.

Catherine Herridge could be telling the truth, or she may not be. Also, she is not the only one that contributed to that piece.

What is laughable is that you are bringing info from two different posts to make your point.
You do know that you did that, right?
What I said, in the post that said nothing of FOX News, was this:

That is the latest method for the Hillary supporters are using to discredit real information.

I was referring to what the member said and how the same member used it when I was giving them real information... in another thread. I didn't want to point out that you are misunderstanding the whole thing, but I feel that I need to now.