CNN: Newly released Clinton emails show favors for Foundation donors.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Link (CNN).
Link (New York Times).

Just breaking this morning. Emails were obtained through FOIA, 44 of which were withheld from the FBI. Is that obstruction of justice I smell?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And again, the two highlighted emails really dont show anything. Hillary is a stronger candidate than people thought. Assange doesnt have anything, Judicial Watch cant find anything and Trumps an idiot. I think Hillary might be president come January.

So this is what you mean:

I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH NAH NAH NOT HAPPENING NO LOLZ ITS NOT HAPPENING.

Assange has nothing to do with this. You should try reading the articles.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If all further revelations are of this caliber, Clinton will be president.

I was unaware that pay-for-play politics was a normal part of every election.

No one cares. 63% of people are tired of hearing about the damn emails.

Most people are not okay with the Republican presidential candidate soliciting the murder of his opponent. Of course, folks like the OP hate Hillary so much that they brush it off as a joke or probably agree. OP, do you agree with Trump's comments or think they were a joke? That's a question this board should know.

Uh, corruption is usually a higher priority than a sentence intentionally misinterpreted by maniacs like yourself who are terrified of Hillary losing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Abedine, through her position at Foundation and Foundation, steered donors to Secretary Clinton (Wall Street Journal).

If all further revelations are of this caliber, Clinton will be president.

I was unaware that pay-for-play politics was a normal part of every election.

Judicial Watch is not a legit organization, so anything they bring up is questionable to say the least

Anyone can use FOIA. They don't have to be journalists. They pulled out evidence and presented it to the media to digest.

If all further revelations are of this caliber, Clinton will be president.

I was unaware that pay-for-play politics was a normal part of every election.

You are either painfully naive or mindbogglingly obtuse.

Your spooked.

The headlines were:

CNN: Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation

NYT: Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap

You're putting in your own spin and passing it off as CNN's headline.

That pretty much is the content of the two reports. I fail to see how headlines matter here. Care to discuss the story itself?

Maniac? No, you are projecting. I've had a couple of your posts removed for being quite threatening toward or abusive toward me.

Again, answer the question? Do you believe that Second Amendment people should take care of Hillary Clinton if she becomes President?

Yeah, the Second Amendment folks and the NRA will dump millions into the midterms, hold or take back the Senate, and prevent her from nominating any judges. They'll take care of her just like Trump said when he referenced the midterms in that sentence.

Quit deflecting from this very serious report.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Is there any indication that the person being "taken care of" was a donor and not just someone who was very helpful or competent?

The person in question is connected to a wealthy Nigerian-Lebanese donor to the Clinton Foundation. Bill attended his wedding in France.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton aides aggressively tracked FOIA efforts.

Abedine, through her position at Foundation and Foundation, steered donors to Secretary Clinton (Wall Street Journal).

Its the same article with a different headline. Theres nothing wrong with using your connections as Secretary of state, especially in a country like Lebanon.

So there is nothing wrong with using the government to reward donors to your personal cashcow?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah, the Second Amendment folks and the NRA will dump millions into the midterms, hold or take back the Senate, and prevent her from nominating any judges. They'll take care of her just like Trump said when he referenced the midterms in that sentence.

Quit deflecting from this very serious report.

It's not a serious report, it's more grasping at straws from Judicial Watch. Second, Trump never mentioned a midterm election or any election at all, you are putting words in his mouth that he never said. He stated that if she was able to nominate judges that there was nothing anyone could do, except the Second Amendment people.

Judicial Watch used FOIA and released what they got to the media. They didn't make these emails up. Of course they had an agenda. That is why the sought these emails. Are you really this dense?

He never mentioned shooting her, either. Quit projecting.

OP has biased headline.  Surprise.  Nothing new is learned in these emails and seeing the pearl clutching that some are doing is sad. 

Deflect with personal attacks. Typical Jerry move.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The headlines were:

CNN: Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation

NYT: Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap

You're putting in your own spin and passing it off as CNN's headline.

That pretty much is the content of the two reports. I fail to see how headlines matter here. Care to discuss the story itself?

Except it's not. It says the emails raise questions, but at no point does CNN claim as you say they did that they show favors for donations.

This is pretty clear. The emails show Clinton trying to arrange favors for donors. CNN reported what the emails contained. Pretty cut and dry. The headline isn't important here.

Assange doesnt have anything

I hope so.

I'm pretty sure he dumped his good stuff already. He claimed he has Trump's tax returns too, but never delivered. He's bluffing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Can we start a "BUT HILLARY!!!!11!!!!!" megathread?

So do you have an actual defense or are you just going to subsist on snark and more conspiracy theories about Putin?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Here are the real corrupt emails for the day:

Christine Renna, who worked under Christie’s deputy chief of staff, texted another aide during a press conference in which Christie denied that his administration was involved in the 2013 George Washington Bridge lane closing. The text message was released Wednesday in a new court filing, first reported by NorthJersey.com.

“Are you listening? He just flat out lied about senior staff and [former deputy chief of staff Bill] Stepien not being involved,” Renna said in the message sent on Dec. 13, 2013.

“He lied,” she added. “And if emails are found with the subpoena of [campaign] emails are uncovered in discovery if it come to that it could be bad.”

Christie isn't on the ticket for a reason. Address the topic at hand.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Can we start a "BUT HILLARY!!!!11!!!!!" megathread?

So do you have an actual defense or are you just going to subsist on snark and more conspiracy theories about Putin?

I'm looking through these emails and while they do reference Clinton Foundation donors for speeches and as contacts, there's not much beyond minor quid pro quo if you'd call it that.

This is the State Department. The Secretary should not be using her personal contacts and friends to conduct diplomacy. That type of "quid pro quo" is the type of stuff that led to the various abuses of the CIA under Johnson and Nixon.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Here are the real corrupt emails for the day:

Christine Renna, who worked under Christie’s deputy chief of staff, texted another aide during a press conference in which Christie denied that his administration was involved in the 2013 George Washington Bridge lane closing. The text message was released Wednesday in a new court filing, first reported by NorthJersey.com.

“Are you listening? He just flat out lied about senior staff and [former deputy chief of staff Bill] Stepien not being involved,” Renna said in the message sent on Dec. 13, 2013.

“He lied,” she added. “And if emails are found with the subpoena of [campaign] emails are uncovered in discovery if it come to that it could be bad.”

Christie isn't on the ticket for a reason. Address the topic at hand.

I did address the "topic at hand" Chairman Sanchez. All that the Judicial Watch emails, all TWO of them, reveal, is that two people from the Clinton Foundation were put in contact with aides of Clinton at the State Dept. Can you show me where favors were exchanged? Then you'd be on to something.

From the New York Times.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the New York Times, not some rag like RedState or Breitbart.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't understand, why are people deflecting and avoiding this? These emails are very minor and don't show anything besides minor quid pro quo, practiced in every democracy since the Athenians, and by every party.

Quid pro quo is appointing a big donor Ambassador to Norway, not taking bribes through a front Foundation in exchange for influence.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Can we start a "BUT HILLARY!!!!11!!!!!" megathread?

So do you have an actual defense or are you just going to subsist on snark and more conspiracy theories about Putin?

I pedal conspiracy theories about Putin? lol, okay... what do these emails do other than merely "raise questions?" If it's a case of quid pro quo (not clear from the emails,) that's not great, but does it disqualify someone from the presidency? Not many people are arguing that these damn emails are great for Hillary, but they're not more than a minor concern that are used as an excuse to disqualify her by her detractors.

It raises serious allegations about bribery and obstruction of justice. This is why Donald Trump is polling as the more trustworthy candidate. This isn't just a fetish of Republicans, and you know it.

I don't understand, why are people deflecting and avoiding this? These emails are very minor and don't show anything besides minor quid pro quo, practiced in every democracy since the Athenians, and by every party.

Quid pro quo is appointing a big donor Ambassador to Norway, not taking bribes through a front Foundation in exchange for influence.

Isn't a donation sufficient to make you an ambassador a bribe by your definition? Both result in the same end goal.

Yes, but the Ambassador to Norway is a patronage appointment with little pull. The career diplomats in the embassy handle the relations, the Ambassador just gets his picture taken with the King and goes to the Opera. Is it bribery? Yes. But is also a tradition dating back to the Athenian era.

This, on the other hand, is much, much larger. Too large to ignore, and too deep in depth.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Chairman, there's a reason this isn't going to be in the news tomorrow and it isn't because of the corrupt media.

Really? I'm seeing it on the CNN ticker as I type this and I suspect by the evening it will on the air. Will you address the allegations though or continue to deny the allegations that are in your face?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Chairman, there's a reason this isn't going to be in the news tomorrow and it isn't because of the corrupt media.

Really? I'm seeing it on the CNN ticker as I type this and I suspect by the evening it will on the air. Will you address the allegations though or continue to deny the allegations that are in your face?

I said tomorrow, didn't I. 

Yet you still have not bothered to read the articles or explain why this won't be on the news.

Lol, Trump supporters are so desperate.

There is nothing new or damning here, if it was this would be among the top 5 stories on CNN.

Yeah, news networks that have reportedly pounded a candidate unfairly for weeks on events that literally didn't happen like the so called "threat" yesterday are totally going to put a lot of energy taking on someone who is a threat to their owners. Sure.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Chairman, there's a reason this isn't going to be in the news tomorrow and it isn't because of the corrupt media.

Really? I'm seeing it on the CNN ticker as I type this and I suspect by the evening it will on the air. Will you address the allegations though or continue to deny the allegations that are in your face?

I said tomorrow, didn't I. 

Yet you still have not bothered to read the articles or explain why this won't be on the news.

Lol, Trump supporters are so desperate.

There is nothing new or damning here, if it was this would be among the top 5 stories on CNN.

Yeah, news networks that have reportedly pounded a candidate unfairly for weeks on events that literally didn't happen like the so called "threat" yesterday are totally going to put a lot of energy taking on someone who is a threat to their owners. Sure.

I did read the articles, I question if you actually read the articles.

No, I just pulled those direct quotes from the New York Times out of my ass

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And here comes the CNN report right now! I thought the media didn't care because it was a non-story?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Chairman, there's a reason this isn't going to be in the news tomorrow and it isn't because of the corrupt media.

Really? I'm seeing it on the CNN ticker as I type this and I suspect by the evening it will on the air. Will you address the allegations though or continue to deny the allegations that are in your face?

I said tomorrow, didn't I.  

Yet you still have not bothered to read the articles or explain why this won't be on the news.

Lol, Trump supporters are so desperate.

There is nothing new or damning here, if it was this would be among the top 5 stories on CNN.

Yeah, news networks that have reportedly pounded a candidate unfairly for weeks on events that literally didn't happen like the so called "threat" yesterday are totally going to put a lot of energy taking on someone who is a threat to their owners. Sure.

Oh please.

Hillary took her fair share of of hits when the FBI ruling came out. The reason why no one is up and arms about this is because it is not all that important or damaging in the grand scheme of things. This is the problem that the right has since they live in a bubble, they blow up every little story and then are surprised when the rest of the country doesn't care.

Your starting to malfunction worse than the Marcobot in the debates. How many times are you going to repeat that "nobody cares" when Hillary Clinton's rating of trust is lower than Donald Trump? Donald. freaking. Trump.

Also, she hid 44 of these emails from the FBI. I thought she gave all of her personal emails?

Number of people who care...

Tick tock tick tock tick tock...

ZERO!!!

Bernie was right when he said we were sick and tired of hearing about the damn e-mails.

Then how come literally no one trusts her?

And here comes the CNN report right now! I thought the media didn't care because it was a non-story?

Nobody has said CNN wasn't covering this, I said CNN won't be covering this tomorrow. I don't know if your actually this desperate or just trolling us like the first day of the DNC.

Your the one who literally just keeps insisting there is no story without offering reasons as to why? That sounds desperate to me.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People don't really care, if they did Hillary wouldn't be up 9-10 points nationally and winning the majority of the swing states.

Nice try, but this one is a dud.

She's up because Trump's mouth opens. How come he is more trustworthy than Clinton according to the polls? I thought people didn't care?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People don't really care, if they did Hillary wouldn't be up 9-10 points nationally and winning the majority of the swing states.

Nice try, but this one is a dud.

She's up because Trump's mouth opens. How come he is more trustworthy than Clinton according to the polls? I thought people didn't care?

No, she is more trustworthy than that ass wipe is. 

Show me the polls then. I thought the polls were always right.

Judicial Watch used FOIA and released what they got to the media. They didn't make these emails up. Of course they had an agenda. That is why the sought these emails. Are you really this dense?

He never mentioned shooting her, either. Quit projecting.

Careful with the personal attacks, you don't want another removed post. There is nothing new or damning here. You are just trying to cover up for Trump calling for Clinton to be murdered. That's what he meant and everyone knows it. It's sick that anyone would agree with that or cover up for it.

I'm glad to see the PC police is on patrol today, silencing others.

Mr. Chairman keep on exposing the Crooked Clintons for the terrible human beings they are.

No one is silencing anyone. The same old people are just getting called out for making something out of nothing. Trump screwed up and now you are trying to get him out of it by bringing up the emails again.

No, it seems like Hillary screwed up. She's known to short circuit, after all.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Judicial Watch used FOIA and released what they got to the media. They didn't make these emails up. Of course they had an agenda. That is why the sought these emails. Are you really this dense?

He never mentioned shooting her, either. Quit projecting.

Careful with the personal attacks, you don't want another removed post. There is nothing new or damning here. You are just trying to cover up for Trump calling for Clinton to be murdered. That's what he meant and everyone knows it. It's sick that anyone would agree with that or cover up for it.

I'm glad to see the PC police is on patrol today, silencing others.

Mr. Chairman keep on exposing the Crooked Clintons for the terrible human beings they are.

No one is silencing anyone. The same old people are just getting called out for making something out of nothing. Trump screwed up and now you are trying to get him out of it by bringing up the emails again.

Also, you threatened to report me to the Secret Service over a crime that wasn't committed. That sounds like trying to silence someone.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People don't really care, if they did Hillary wouldn't be up 9-10 points nationally and winning the majority of the swing states.

Nice try, but this one is a dud.

She's up because Trump's mouth opens. How come he is more trustworthy than Clinton according to the polls? I thought people didn't care?

He is not.

In every poll, Hillary crushes him when it comes who do you trust/better suited to be President.

CBS source for below quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we start a "BUT HILLARY!!!!11!!!!!" megathread?

So do you have an actual defense or are you just going to subsist on snark and more conspiracy theories about Putin?

I pedal conspiracy theories about Putin? lol, okay... what do these emails do other than merely "raise questions?" If it's a case of quid pro quo (not clear from the emails,) that's not great, but does it disqualify someone from the presidency? Not many people are arguing that these damn emails are great for Hillary, but they're not more than a minor concern that are used as an excuse to disqualify her by her detractors.

It raises serious allegations about bribery and obstruction of justice. This is why Donald Trump is polling as the more trustworthy candidate. This isn't just a fetish of Republicans, and you know it.

Hardly, and Trump is considered more trustworthy because of perception, not facts. Some people will buy any crap story about Hillary, and you know that. Trump is the one who has been more dishonest than any other presidential candidate.

Are you saying the polls are rigged?

No, it seems like Hillary screwed up. She's known to short circuit, after all.

You are panicking and it shows.

You sound like Walter.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Judicial Watch used FOIA and released what they got to the media. They didn't make these emails up. Of course they had an agenda. That is why the sought these emails. Are you really this dense?

He never mentioned shooting her, either. Quit projecting.

Careful with the personal attacks, you don't want another removed post. There is nothing new or damning here. You are just trying to cover up for Trump calling for Clinton to be murdered. That's what he meant and everyone knows it. It's sick that anyone would agree with that or cover up for it.

I'm glad to see the PC police is on patrol today, silencing others.

Mr. Chairman keep on exposing the Crooked Clintons for the terrible human beings they are.

No one is silencing anyone. The same old people are just getting called out for making something out of nothing. Trump screwed up and now you are trying to get him out of it by bringing up the emails again.

Also, you threatened to report me to the Secret Service over a crime that wasn't committed. That sounds like trying to silence someone.

You'll get yourself in trouble with the Secret Service eventually, it's just a matter of time. I'm waiting for that moment with a bucket popcorn.

No? That doesn't change the fact that you already outright made the claim, but I will not allow you to deflect from the topic at hand.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/JW-v-State-Abedin-production-9-00684-2.pdf
Here are the emails in their raw form.

Okay, here is my question: why would the FBI care about the Clinton Foundation? None of these emails contained classified information, so they weren't relevant to the investigation. Obstruction of justice is a gigantic stretch.

The obstruction of justice involves her hiding emails that are damaging politically. She withheld these emails from the FBI, and they certainly point to wrong-doing. She's withheld key information yet again.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And here comes the CNN report right now! I thought the media didn't care because it was a non-story?

On CNN.com website, the "Top Stories" section has nothing on this.
The only thing I see is a link to "New Clinton emails released" .... that's it.
Sounds like another "much ado about nothing" story and thread.
ChairmanSanchez .... you are putting us all to sleep with this one.

You have no argument
 and your styleof posting is
really    unreadable.
Are you and InvisibleObama drunk
again