A new investigation is being called for regarding Hillary Clinton and her use of unsecured email servers to send sensitive and classified information.

During her political endeavors as the Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, there was severe scrutiny over the use of Clinton’s private email server to transmit over 62,000 email communications.

While slightly over half of them were reportedly produced by Clinton in December of 2014, Judicial Watch has managed to make public an additional 37 pages of Clinton emails never before seen. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the group has published the emails for everyone to view online.

We’re roughly three years past the humiliating defeat of Clinton by President Trump during the 2016 election cycle, but the public has still never seen what ever happened to the 30,000 other emails from Clinton’s private server.

However, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed this past Friday that the FBI produced 37 new pages of Clinton emails. This latest revelation once again cements that Clinton grossly mishandled classified information and used text messages for official business as well.

According to the press release by the group on Friday, they stated:

“Judicial Watch today released 37 pages of new Clinton emails recently found by the FBI that show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her unsecure, non-government email to transmit classified information. The new emails also show Clinton used text messages for government business.”

What is curious about the latest discovery is that no one is claiming exactly how these emails were located. Keep in mind that the State Department claimed that all the emails were turned over in late 2014, then found more in 2018 and said that was the last of what remained.

Then in early 2019 they found some more emails and claimed that those were all they could find. Now, these November 2019 discoveries made public last week are of course these are last ones, they promise.

Right.

Judicial Watch’s statement speculated on the odd circumstances of the discovery:

“The State Department did not provide information about where the emails were found; why they were not previously produced; or if additional records are anticipated.”

The 37 pages of new emails published online were thanks to litigation against the State Department lead by Judicial Watch. They levied the Freedom of Information Act as a means to compel the data be released, as the group has been working to create more government transparency for years.

In the latest batch of emails, it shows that Clinton had used her private server to communicate with officials like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. There’s also correspondence between Clinton and then-Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, where emails between them showed Feltman trying to arrange a meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati in 2011.

There were also emails with Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin about “text messages” and arranging travel for her “confidential assistant” Monica Hanley to “the Hamptons” to help her get organized. This is the same Hanley who was detailed to have mishandled or misplaced sensitive government information as well.

Several of the emails that were released did contain then-classified information, including the one to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, stated that the latest batch of emails demands a new investigation into Clinton. Fitton summarized that these emails provide irrefutable evidence that Clinton regularly exchanged classified information on her private server.

“Magically, after years, the FBI finds more Clinton emails that show Clinton used text messages for government work, not to mention the continuing flow of classified information transmitted over her unsecure email system. These documents further underscore the need for a fresh, unbiased and thorough criminal investigation into Clinton’s blatant malfeasance – and the related DOJ, FBI, and State Department cover-up.”

Quite frankly, no one is “above the law”, and in order to restore confidence from the public regarding the judicial system then we need to hold even the highest echelon accountable. Due to the perception of a two-tiered legal system, public trust has been wavering when acknowledging the courts, and the only way to fix it is with Clinton donning a pair of handcuffs.

Speaking of no one being above the law… some are saying that it’s time for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to resign.

The irony of Nancy Pelosi’s move to impeach Trump for “Obstruction of Congress” is arguably that it’s exactly what she herself is now doing.

In the impeachment debacle of President Trump, the first “political” impeachment in history, Democrats in the House cited two “violations:”

Article I was “Abuse of Power.”

Article II was “Obstruction of Congress.”

Neither one of these articles rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore are not impeachable offenses, but I digress.

UNCOVERED: DOJ gave immunity to Clinton lawyer who deleted the 33,000 emails! https://t.co/bbdTQSDXbD — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) January 10, 2020

Let us address the second article, “obstruction of Congress.” While the president has a constitutional basis for the conduct that House Democrats are calling “obstruction,” the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has no such basis.

Let’s look at some of the rhetoric that was emanating from the hot air chamber of the Democrat caucus. For weeks, Democrats such as Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Pelosi herself insisted that President Trump was a threat to our “national security,” that “elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic,” and that, “if we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty.”

Indeed, the most serious legal action that a legislative body in the United States can take against the duly elected president was undertaken in weeks. By contrast, the impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton took over two months from the time it started until Clinton was impeached by the House.

Yet, Pelosi has now said that she wasn’t prepared to deliver the articles of impeachment to the deciding body, the US Senate, and said that she had not yet decided who the House “managers” in the Senate would be.

The funny part is, both Pelosi and Chuckie Schumer, Senate Minority Leader are complaining that the trial in the Senate will not be ‘fair.”

They had no such reservations when Schiff ran roughshod over Republicans in the inquisition before the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff decided who would be allowed to testify, had autocratic authority over questions asked, and even actively advised witnesses as to their testimony when questioned by Republicans. Apparently for Democrats, “fair” is a one-way street.

When Democrats speak of fairness, they are talking about fairness to them, in this case the “prosecution.” They have so much faith in their case being “rock solid” that they want to be able to call additional witnesses in the trial before the Senate.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.

So, President Trump, who is, according to the House a “clear and present danger” and a “threat to national security” isn’t as much of a threat as Democrats were making him out to be.

Pelosi has now said that she will not send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate until after she and the rest of the House Democrats enjoy their Christmas recess. Hopefully, President Trump doesn’t go “rogue” during that two-week period of time.

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution clearly states:

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Nowhere does it say that the House gets to demand how the process works and who can testify. That is the sole responsibility of the Senate under the Constitution.

The Constitution also allows the Senate to hold a trial as soon as an impeachment takes place in the House. This is not subject to the interpretation of left-wing college professors or liberal talking heads on cable news.

In fact, Pelosi herself is currently obstructing the Senate by refusing to transmit the impeachment articles to that body.

This means one of two things. Either Pelosi knows that the impeachment is doomed to defeat in the Senate (obvious since Republicans have the majority and it is extremely unlikely that a sufficient number can be turned in order to reach a 2/3 threshold), or she never intended to transmit the articles in the first place.

Democrats in one form or another have been seeking to impeach President Trump since he was inaugurated, if not before. Pelosi herself admitted that they have been working on impeachment for 2-1/2 years.

Maxine Waters (D-CA) has made her slogan “Impeach 45.” Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), at a rally after she was sworn into Congress said:

“We’re gonna impeach the motherf*cker!”

Congressman Al Green said:

“The only thing that can prevent President Trump from re-election in 2020 is to impeach him.”

Why would Pelosi not send the articles to the Senate? She may feel she doesn’t have to.

Since this impeachment has all the makings of a political impeachment, which the founders warned against, instead of a legal impeachment, Pelosi may feel that just the fact that Trump was impeached will make for good sound bites for Democrats in next year’s election.

In the case of the president, who can cite text and precedent in resisting congressional subpoenas, Pelosi’s obstruction is unlawful and unprecedented. One could easily claim that Pelosi herself is guilty of obstruction of Congress, by interfering with the Senate’s duty to adjudicate the articles the House passed.

Based on precedent set by the House, apparently the intent or possibility of committing an action is sufficient to hold an elected official in contempt. Nadler himself alluded to this during the House impeachment debate, stating,

“The threat is urgent. If we do not act—now—what happens next will be our responsibility as well as his.”

If this is the new standard Pelosi and the Democrats have set, then she too can be held accountable for trying to undermine the Constitution or her intention to do so.

In some ways, it would be nice to see Mitch McConnell and the Republicans actually hold a trial in the Senate, and subpoena the so-called “whistleblower,” Adam Schiff, the Bidens, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and the rest of the deep-state cabal that conspired to overturn an election that was an electoral landslide for President Trump.

McConnell will likely tire of the Democrat grandstanding and just dismiss the impeachment. It would be nice however to add a cherry on top—charging Pelosi with Contempt of Congress for stonewalling the ability of the Senate to try the case.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!