HILLARY’s EMAILS ARE BAAACK! Federal Judge to Make Them PUBLIC!!

ELDER PATRIOT – During the third presidential debate Hillary Clinton said, “The FBI conducted a year-long investigation into my e-mails. They concluded there was no case.”

Au contraire Mrs. Clinton, FBI Director James Comey’s statement merely gave his opinion about the 30,000 emails she did hand over and not the more than 60,000 emails that her lawyers were allowed to dispose of based on their own “judgment.”




By way of comparison it took the FBI the better part of a decade to finally bring mafia kingpin John Gotti to justice.  During that time there were multiple acquittals despite the fact that the Teflon Don’s attorneys didn’t have the same ability to block the FBI’s investigators from seeing two-thirds of the evidence.

Mrs. Clinton’s statement would have been more accurate if she had added three little words, “as of yet” as in, “As of yet, they concluded there was no case.”

That’s because Federal Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York (a George W. Bush appointee) “ordered the Justice Department to file with him under seal, by 5 p.m. Thursday, a copy of any search warrant application and related documents (he said he was not asking the government to confirm in open court that they even existed). He said the government should also propose redactions of any materials that, for example, could compromise investigations or people’s reputations if made public,” in response to a motion filed by liberal attorney E. Randol Schoenberg.




The New York Times is reported on Tuesday that:

“A federal judge in Manhattan indicated on Tuesday that he may partially unseal a government search warrant and supporting documents stemming from the F.B.I.’s investigation of a large cache of emails belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton.

“The discovery of the emails occurred during an unrelated investigation of Ms. Abedin’s estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner, the disgraced former congressman who has been under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Manhattan over allegations that he exchanged illicit text messages with a 15-year-old girl.”

Schoenberg filed the motion in an attempt to discredit Comey and exonerate Mrs. Clinton but just like the Russian hacking story and the recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin the likelihood is this will also backfire on Clinton and the treacherous people who have supported her.

Once Jeff Sessions become the Attorney General Mrs. Clinton will no longer have “friends” to protect her from prosecution in the Justice System.

Mrs. Clinton is soon going to find out that the justice system won’t be so forgiving when she no longer controls it.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’