Judicial Watch Refuses To Give Hillary A Break And Continues To Press For Action On Her Email Case


Please share our stories and website with your friends and family. Facebook disabled some 800 Conservative Facebook pages on October 11, 2018, many veteran-owned like this one,  that will leave hundreds of writers without an income if we are unable to get our websites circulated. I ask that you not only support The Trump News-Gazette but any other conservative websites you may enjoy reading. We must not allow Facebook to silence us and censor the information people receive… I believe Americans are capable of discerning and choosing what they want to read on their own! Thank you!


The more information that surfaces regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal, the more it really does look like forces within the FBI tried their darndest to keep the worst of it from coming to light. This week Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton’s watchdog group that does more journalism via the Freedom of Information Act than all of the mainstream media combined on the topic, published a memo from someone inside the FBI regarding what was found on the Anthony Weiner laptop in the way of Hillary Clinton emails.

The new documents include an October 3, 2016, email to a FBI official in New York that reads:

Just putting this on the record because of the optics of this case.

During the course of my review of a computer seized from Anthony Weiner, a seizure and search of which was authorized by an SDNY [Southern District of New York] Search Warrant, I encountered approximately/at least 340,000 emails stored on the computer. The large number of emails appears to be a result of a mail client program installed on that computer (such as Outlook) that pulled emails from servers belonging to both Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.

A significant number of these 340,000 emails appeared to be between Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton (the latter who appears to have used a number of different email addresses). This is based simply a review of the header information. I did not review content of these emails, as the warrant only authorized me to view items that would give me probable cause to believe that CP [child pornography] evidence may reside therein.

SDNY is comfortable with me continuing my review as I have, which is to NOT read any emails to/from Anthony Weiner to which his wife, or a possible attorney is a party. Even if there is a third party on those emails, I will not review their content out of an abundance of caution. Obviously, I will not review any emails to which Anthony Weiner is not a party (such as emails between Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton). I just wanted to formally bring this to your attention due to the pending election, the ongoing Congressional investigation into the FBI’s own investigation into Ms. Clinton’s email activities, etc.

What appears to have happened when it comes to the FBI’s investigation is that they concentrated on looking for material that would incriminate Anthony Weiner due to the limited scope of the warrant. The warrant itself did not cover anything that Hillary Clinton would have been a party to even if the evidence was collected legally. It was collected in relation to a completely different matter.

It looks like there was an effort within the FBI to keep the investigations separate, and that is why only just over 3,000 of the emails were reviewed at that time, and why said review happened so fast.

That piece of information does not explain why the FBI sat on the knowledge that they had the emails when a Congressional investigation of the entire matter was underway. They did so for over a month before Director James Comey passed on the information.

“These new documents show the FBI knowingly sat on the Clinton emails for over a month before notifying Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And even worse, we now know the FBI didn’t even bother to look at the emails, and then again only partially, for weeks. The Clinton email scandal needs to be reviewed again and immediately by the Justice Department.”

While this is true, the question that needs an airtight answer is, is this evidence gathered as part of a separate matter admissible for charges brought against Clinton for whatever misdeeds are in them? If the answer is no, then another avenue must be sought to get the evidence.

It’s all part of due process.


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply