GRAHAM NOBLE
Political Correspondent
No-one is safe from being blamed by Hillary Clinton for her election loss – not even the Democratic National Committee itself. Certainly, the huge email scandal, or “nothingburger,” as Clinton referred to it this week, played a role in the almost universal loss of trust she suffered during the campaign. That scandal, like Hillary herself, stubbornly refuses to go away. Unlike Hillary, however, the email scandal never ran out of steam. In fact, it is as strong as ever – thanks, mainly, to Judicial Watch – even if the establishment media has chosen to ignore it.
The latest release of related documents, published on Judicial Watch’s website Thursday, includes another 115 emails not part of the documentation handed over by Clinton to the Department of State. It should be remembered that Clinton insisted, on several occasions, that her campaign had handed over all work-related emails. As one example, reported in the New York Times on August 10, 2015:
Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement filed under oath in federal court on Monday that she had provided to the State Department all of the work-related emails that were on the personal email account she used exclusively while she was secretary of state.
Of course, the “work-related” emails did not include some 33,000 that Clinton ordered deleted beyond recovery. The former first lady and secretary of state insisted that these all concerned personal matters such as yoga classes and preparations for daughter Chelsea’s wedding.
Not even all the work-related emails were turned over, however; according to Judicial Watch, at least 432 additional emails, not originally turned in, have since been obtained. This latest batch of 115 is included in that total.
On its website, Judicial Watch documents, in detail, the recently-obtained materials and email contents. Among other things, these new emails further implicate the Clinton State Department, the Clinton Foundation and several of Clinton’s closest aides in a web of lies and corruption.
On December 6, 2010, Secretary Clinton shared classified information with non-U.S. government employees Justin Cooper, then-aide to President Clinton who helped manage Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system, and Clinton Foundation director Doug Band (neither of whom held security clearances).
Although this is just one of several documented instances of Clinton and her aides sharing classified material with individuals not cleared to receive it, the irregularities go deeper. Close ties between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation are evident, favors were done and influence was exerted – or, at the least, leveraged – in favor of certain private-sector individuals and organizations.
In an email from May 2010, Clinton’s closest advisor, Huma Abedin, informs Doug Band that she had connected “people from the Russian American Foundation with “the right people” at the State Department.” This, in response to a request from the former organization. According to Judicial Watch:
The Russia-American Foundation was staffed by Clinton political supporters and operatives, received over $260,000 in grants for “public diplomacy” from the Clinton State Department, and its leadership was supportive of Obama’s Russia policies.
In her email to Band, Abedin wrote “FYI – we hooked her [Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner] up with the right people here [the State Department].”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton described the Clinton State Department as “corruption central” and says, “these shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations.”
Despite the abundant evidence of mishandled classified material, cronyism and false statements, however, it remains to be seen whether the current administration will give the green light to reopening this investigation. Should it do so at this time, the inevitable response from both the establishment media and the Democratic Party will be that the intent is to distract from the current investigations into Russian collusion.
The difference between the two is clear; one is running on fumes whilst the other may have enough fuel to drive a number of individuals all the way to a federal penitentiary.
