Judicial Watch Lawsuit Uncovers More Hillary Clinton Emails Withheld from State Department

Meanwhile, as Clinton supporters are out parroting the "did not willfully violate federal law" schpiel to justify Hillary's having Top Secret/SCI information on a server which was not secured from outside access, other things are being brought forward showing a pattern of dishonesty.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages) that again appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com system until March 18, 2009.

...

Many of the documents predate March 18, 2009, go back as far as January, and were not turned over by Clinton to the State Department from her non-government server. The emails cover topics such as: her schedule and travel plans; criticisms of Clinton by Richard Gere; Afghanistan; U.S. financial aid and security concerns for several Pacific Islands; the recommendation for a health care system overhaul; and food security.

Other previously unreleased emails are dated March 18, 2009, despite suggestions by Clinton that she had turned over emails with that date. These emails refer to, among other things, her “friends at Planned Parenthood” and a call to Bill Clinton’s former National Security Adviser, the late Sandy Berger, who was convicted of illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives.

Source

Pretty certain that she testified under oath that all of what was deleted was NOT work related. If the above is true, then perjury can be added to the list of charges with which Hillary Clinton should be charged with.

On August 10, 2015, Judicial Watch announced that the State Department submitted to the court a sworn declaration from Clinton regarding federal records on her controversial email system. The declaration states:

I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:

While I do not know what information may be “responsive” for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.
As a result of my directive, approximately 55,000 pages of these emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.
Cheryl Mills did not have an account on clintonemail.com. Huma Abedin did have such an account which was used at times for government business.

The document is signed by “Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The State Department was ordered by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on July 31 to request that Clinton and her top aides confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession and to return any other government records immediately.

emphasis mine


So, yes, she did swear, under oath, that she had provided all relevant materials and agree to face penalty of perjury otherwise.



I still wonder what Sandy Berg(l)er stuffed down his pants and walked out with when he visited the government archives...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Next we will hear that she did not intentionally perjure herself... and that Benghazi is a witch hunt.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

she's gonna channel her inner Bill and say, "it depends what your definition of "all" is"

I really would love to see Guccifer testify before congress.

The emails cover topics such as: her schedule and travel plans; criticisms of Clinton by Richard Gere; Afghanistan; U.S. financial aid and security concerns for several Pacific Islands; the recommendation for a health care system overhaul; and food security.

Interesting.

Now we have to find out the context of those particular topics in the emails. Were they in an official capacity, or were they private discussions on those topics outside of her position?

Considering that one of them were criticisms of Clinton by Richard Gere, we may find these emails were personal discussions.

and there's this from last year ...

FBI Examining Online ‘Cloud’ Backups of Hillary Clinton’s Email

Hillary Clinton’s lawyers have agreed to hand over online backups of her emails made through an Internet “cloud” storage system to the FBI, and the Senate Homeland Security committee has also asked to see these files.

The FBI has all the goods.

a reply to: introvert

Considering that one of them were criticisms of Clinton by Richard Gere, we may find these emails were personal discussions.

Granted, but how many would you allow for it to be considered perjury on Hillary's part if you found out that any were work (State Department business) related?

This email (with information redacted due to it's classified nature, btw) seems to be work related:



I don't think it said "under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct: ... I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records to be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done. With maybe some exceptions" now does it?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Darned, stupid facts.... making Hillary look bad.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

This email (with information redacted due to it's classified nature, btw) seems to be work related:

Seems to be? Well, was it?

It could also be discussions regarding work the Clinton Foundation may have been doing in those nations.

We need to put everything in proper context before we come to any conclusions.

a reply to: introvert

Seems to be? Well, was it? 

There must be a reason for the redaction.

Hillary could have been sending Richard Gere classified info, since we know that she has no problem sending classified info to people that have no security clearance (see Sidney Blumenthal).

a reply to: introvert

Here's one (again, with redactions due to portions being classified) in which Hillary is discussing their response to the Benghazi incident:



Would you say that is State Department related?

Again, I want to ask you, how many State Department (work related) emails will it take for you to allow that Hillary perjured herself?

Oh, it was an oopsie, I forgot...

originally posted by: introvert

It could also be discussions regarding work the Clinton Foundation may have been doing in those nations.

Last I checked, The Crime Foundation does not hold a clearance.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

"did not willfully violate federal law"

I have tried this strategy before. It doesn't work.

a reply to: introvert

By the way, those two screenshots of emails were taken from the .pdf of 101 pages listed in the OP article.

PDF direct link it's a little over 34MB iirc.

I scrolled through the entire 101 pages and a lot of it looked very State Department-y in that there were meeting notes, itineraries, talking points for "Secretary of State Clinton", etc.

There were two pages listed "redacted family" and one that said "PAGE DENIED" and much redaction with classified annotation.

Second batch. 138 pages direct pdf link, not sure how big that one is, but i would imagine larger than the prior file.

Still think she hasn't committed perjury?

She was confused, as is often the case apparently. Also, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

a reply to: Metallicus

I did not willfully speed officer. I thought I was doing 65 and had no idea I was going 100. So I can go with no tickets, right?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

He is on the Hillary site looking up his reply.

He will be right with you.

Star and Flag for the post.... keep Hillary front and center in the spotlight.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Officer, I have no idea how those 2200 classified documents wound up in the trunk of my my car in my garage!!!

Arrest the car!!!! I didn't do it...the car did it!!!!!