Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

Kerry’s Unfolding Iran Plan?

Posted on by

Get our your decoder ring, some interesting things are in play here and it appears that Kerry is possibly ready for the ultimate Iran betrayal, which has been telegraphed in history and most especially during the P5+1 talks.

In case the talks fail, Kerry could be posturing a move to delete Russia and China from having a vote. Even the Iranian Supreme leader appears to be poised to run away. The Obama team building mission for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has failed…no checkmark there. The next try again event is neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program which appears to be taking a nose-dive…no checkmark there either?

(Reuters) – Washington wants to be certain that any nuclear deal between Iran and major powers includes the possibility of restoring U.N. sanctions if Tehran breaks the agreement without risking Russian and Chinese vetoes, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

United Nations sanctions and a future mechanism for Iran to buy atomic technology are two core sticking points in talks on a possible nuclear deal on which Tehran and world powers have been struggling to overcome deep divisions in recent days, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Negotiators were wrapping up nearly a week of talks in New York on Tuesday, the latest round in 18 months of discussions aimed at clinching a long-term deal by June 30 to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an end to sanctions. Expert-level negotiations are expected to continue for several days.

The current talks have been taking place on the sidelines of a conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The negotiations between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union will resume in Vienna next week.

The latest discussions revolved around a future Security Council resolution that would endorse a deal and render invalid all previous sanctions resolutions, while keeping U.N. bans on ballistic missiles, an arms embargo and some other restrictions.

U.S. and European negotiators want any easing of U.N. sanctions to be automatically reversible – negotiators call this a “snapback” – if Tehran fails to comply with terms of a deal. Russia and China traditionally dislike such automatic measures.

The “snapback” is one of the most important issues for Western governments who fear that, once any U.N. sanctions on Iran are suspended, it could be hard to restore them because Russia and China would veto any such attempt.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made it clear that Washington did not want Russia’s and China’s recent slew of vetoes on resolutions related to Syria to be repeated with an Iran nuclear agreement.

“We’re going to do so in a manner that doesn’t require Russian and Chinese support or a vote for snapback … because we are in a different world in 2015 than we were when the sanctions architecture was put in place,” Power said in an interview with Charlie Rose on Bloomberg television.

She offered no details.

Power said Washington hoped the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Tehran would lead to a change in Iran’s posture on Syria, where it has supported President Bashar al-Assad in a four-year civil war against rebels seeking to oust him.

PROCUREMENT CHANNEL

Iran’s chief negotiator in New York offered a positive assessment of the latest round of nuclear negotiations.

“The atmosphere of the talks was good and it is possible to reach the final deal by June 30,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state television.

However, Western diplomats said on condition of anonymity that Iran and the six powers, who struck an interim agreement on April 2 in Switzerland, were far from agreement due to divisions on sanctions, monitoring and other issues.

Restoring U.S. and EU sanctions is relatively easy, but that is not the case with U.N. sanctions. While the United States is worried about Russia and China, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran want to be certain that Washington cannot unilaterally force a snapback if the Republicans win the U.S. presidency in 2016.

“We haven’t found a mechanism that works for everyone yet,” one diplomat said.

Another difficult issue is the “procurement channel” – a mechanism for approving Iranian purchases of sensitive atomic technology currently banned under U.N. sanctions. One idea under consideration is a vetting committee that would include Iran and the six powers. Tehran would have a say but not a veto, diplomats said.

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal and works hard to circumvent them.

A confidential report by a U.N. Panel of Experts, obtained by Reuters last week, said Britain had informed it of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted companies.

Iran’s supreme leader threatens nuclear talks walkout

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, vowed on Wednesday that his nation would leave nuclear negotiations if it feels threatened by America’s armed forces.

“Recently U.S. officials threatened to take military action against #Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.

“What does negotiations mean under ghost of a threat?” he asked.

“U.S. need for the #talks – if not more – is not less than #Iran’s,” Khamenei wrote.

“Negotiators should observe red lines & tolerate no burden, humiliation & threat,” he added.

Khamenei said Tehran does not need the economic relief the U.S. is offering in a potential deal over its nuclear arms research.

The pact would lift sanctions on Iran in return for greater restrictions on its nuclear programs.

“Many foreign officials said if sanctions against #Iran were put on other countries, they would’ve been destroyed but they didn’t undermine Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.

The supreme leader also mocked the Obama administration’s struggles with the civil war in Yemen. U.S. efforts in the region, he argued, had not restored stability in the Middle East.

“U.S. has been disgraced,” he said.

“Supporting those who attack #women & #children in Yemen & destroy #Yemen’s infrastructure ruin U.S. image in the region,” Khamenei said of American support for ousted Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

Khamenei closed with a parting shot at U.S. race relations. Police action towards minorities, he said, exposed the hypocrisy of American human rights.

“In the world of deception, the most racist govts. become flag-bearers of human rights,” Khamenei posted alongside a video documenting alleged law enforcement abuses in the U.S.

Khamenei’s criticisms come as diplomatic talks between Iran and the West resume over Tehran’s nuclear program. The two sides are wrangling for a final agreement due June 30.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday announced he would move later this week on legislation allowing Congress to review any final Iran deal.

Should it pass, lawmakers could vote on whether they approve of the Obama administration’s potential agreement with Iranian leadership.

For Hillary and her Team, Power is an Aphrodisiac

Posted on by

Their declared power is an aphrodisiac as witnessed by the words wielded by Hillary Clinton. While many in Washington DC abuse authority for the sake of collusion seeking personal gain, Hillary is one of the top trophy winners in this category with her machine and inner protective circle.

Hillary goes farther than Obama on amnesty if that is possible and then her personal aide gets major protections of turning over government documents, mostly emails from that private server. Keep in mind, Hillary is/was a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton goes all in on immigration; pledges to outdo Obama

Hillary Clinton held a Cinco de Mayo event with illegal immigrants in Nevada Tuesday — “an especially appropriate day for us to be having this conversation” — in which she promised to go farther than President Obama in using executive authority to confer legal status on illegal immigrants, and to ultimately to award them U.S. citizenship. No matter what Republicans might offer to illegal immigrants in terms of legal status, Clinton said, she will offer more.

Changing the immigration system will be a top priority should she become president, Clinton said. “We can’t wait any longer. We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship.”

Clinton made clear she would go beyond any Republican, be it Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or any other, in conferring benefits on currently illegal immigrants. “This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side,” she said. “Make no mistakes — today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

As for Obama’s unilateral executive action, Clinton said she will defend what has already been done and then add action of her own. “I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for you and for your families across our country,” she said.

“I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put Dreamers, including those with us today, at risk of deportation. And if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further. There are more people, like many parents of Dreamers, and others, with deep ties and contributions to our communities, who deserve a chance to stay, and I will fight for them.”

“I want to do everything we can to defend the president’s executive orders,” Clinton said at another point. “Because I think they were certainly within his authority, constitutionally, legally, they were based on precedent that I certainly believe is adequate. And then still try to go further and deal with some of these other issues, like the re-unification of families that were here and that have been split up.”

A number of words were missing from Clinton’s discussion of immigration. She did not say “border,” for example, or “visa” or “E-Verify” or “workplace.” The notion of enforcing the nation’s immigration laws as they currently exist was not on the table.

Clinton has not always been quite so expansive on the subject of immigration. For much of 2014, as the nation debated Obama’s threatened unilateral executive action, Clinton stayed out of the conversation, not committing one way or the other. In the summer of 2014, when there was a flood of unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants across the southeastern border, Clinton advocated sending most of them back to their home countries.

“They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who the responsible adults in their families are…” Clinton said at the time. “But I think all of them who can be, should be reunited with their families.”

During her 2008 run for president, Clinton famously opposed issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

That’s all in the past. Now, Clinton is again running for president, and with Hispanic votes to be won, she is vowing she will not be outbid when it comes to the subject of immigration.

Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin’s emails now face disclosure lawsuit

The emails of Huma Abedin, the top personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are now facing a disclosure lawsuit after the State Department failed to turn them over in response to an open-records request.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that uses open-records laws to pry information loose, had filed a request to get a look at Ms. Abedin’s emails during her four years at the State Department. News outlets have reported that Ms. Abedin also used the private email server Mrs. Clinton set up to handle government business, but the status of her messages is unclear.

It’s one of a number of open-records requests Judicial Watch filed after the email scandal broke, and Tom Fitton, president of the organization, said they’ve been stonewalled on all of them, so now they’re turning to the courts.

“We’re churning through these,” he said. “The scandal at the State Department is more than about Hillary Clinton. There are others involved.”

The State Department said it wouldn’t comment now that Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit — though it had struggled to explain its procedures even before the lawsuit was filed, and the status is of Ms. Abedin’s emails remains unclear.

Mrs. Clinton has said she turned over about 30,000 emails from her server, and discarded another 32,000 messages she deemed unrelated to business. But it’s unclear whether the messages she turned over were hers alone, or whether they also included ones from Ms. Abedin’s account or other aides who were using the server for government business.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who exposed the private emails as part of his investigation into the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, has urged Mrs. Clinton to turn the server over to a neutral third party while questions get sorted out, but Mrs. Clinton has refused, saying she believes she has now complied with the law by finally going through and turning emails over.

The law at the time Mrs. Clinton was in office urged federal employees doing government business to use their official accounts, but said those who used personal accounts were required to forward all government-related messages to their official accounts for storage. Mrs. Clinton rejected using an official account and did not forward her messages, but after Mr. Gowdy’s inquiries the State Department asked her to belatedly turn her emails over.

The State Department has turned about 300 emails over to the Benghazi probe, but has refused to release the other tens of thousands of messages, saying it wants to process and clear them all at the same time, which will take months.

But the department has admitted in court that it was remiss in not searching the emails earlier, and has agreed to reopen some previous open-records requests from Judicial Watch that had sought Clinton emails.

Ms. Abedin, who is married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, has come under scrutiny for her time at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton designated her a special government employee, allowing her to collect a federal salary even as she also worked for an outside consulting company.

The department’s inspector general is looking into whether that arrangement was legal, since the designation is supposed to be used to lure workers with special skills into government service. Ms. Abedin was already a government employee when she was given the designation, and the State Department has yet to explain what skills she brought to earn the special status.

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo has no Shame

Posted on by

Wells Fargo appears to have a history of fraudulent decision-makers and employers. Consider this a public service announcement for those account-holders of Wells Fargo. As noted in the LA Times, the city is suing the big bank.

But this is clearly not the first rodeo for Wells Fargo as in New York in 2013:

QUEENS ATTORNEY AMONG THREE INDIVIDUALS CHARGED IN $3.3 MILLION MORTGAGE FRAUD OPERATION

Defendants Face Up To 25 Years In Prison If Convicted

Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown, joined by New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin M. Lawsky, today announced that three individuals – including a Richmond Hill attorney and his sister – have been charged with conspiring to commit mortgage fraud and larceny from Wells Fargo Bank by fraudulently obtaining mortgage funds in excess of $3.3 million pertaining to the purchase of six properties – including four in Queens – during a six-month period in 2008. More here.

Then there was a case with Freddie Mac.

WASHINGTON — Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to an $869 million settlement with Freddie Mac over claims on home loans it sold to the government-controlled mortgage finance company.

The agreement announced Monday by Wells Fargo involves mortgages sold to Freddie before January 2009. Wells said the amount of the agreement was adjusted to reflect credits for previous claims payments, resulting in a cash payment to Freddie of about $780 million. Freddie and its bigger sibling Fannie Mae demanded that Wells Fargo and other big banks buy back mortgages they sold that later soured in the housing bust.

Now there is May of 2015, where the City of Los Angeles has Sued Wells Fargo:

CITY ATTORNEY FEUER FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST WELLS FARGO FOR ALLEGEDLY OPENING UNAUTHORIZED CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS

Complaint Also Alleges Wells Failed to Notify Customers of Unauthorized Use of Personal Information

LOS ANGELES – City Attorney Mike Feuer today announced that his office has filed a civil lawsuit against Wells Fargo, alleging the company has victimized consumers by opening customer accounts, and issuing credit cards, without authorization–then failing to inform customers of the alleged misuse of their personal information or to refund fees for unwanted services.

“Consumers should be entitled to expect that major financial institutions will treat them fairly,” said Feuer. “Our lawsuit alleges that in Wells Fargo’s push for growth the bank often elevated profit over its customers’ legal rights.”

The complaint alleges Wells Fargo’s business model imposed unrealistic sales quotas that, among other things, have driven employees to engage in unlawful activity including opening fee-generating customer accounts and adding unwanted secondary accounts to primary accounts without permission. These practices allegedly have led to significant hardship and financial loss to consumers, including having money withdrawn from customer’s authorized accounts to pay for fees assessed by Wells Fargo on unauthorized accounts and derogatory notes on credit reports when unauthorized fees went unpaid, causing some customers to purchase identity theft protection.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Wells Fargo failed to properly inform customers of misuse of their personal information and failed to refund unauthorized fees. Read more here on the press release.

 

 

 

Proof the Feds are Extorting

Posted on by

A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.

The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.

In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.

“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.

“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.

But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”

The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.

In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
“Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” they wrote. “And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century.”

FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.

Then there is ObamaCare or lack thereof:

ObamaCare extortion? Why Fla. Gov. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration

Governor Rick Scott joins us. Governor, thanks for going On the Record tonight and we want to hear more about why you are suing the administration.

RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Kimberly, it’s outrageous. The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the low income pool. It’s for low income families. Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands ObamaCare. So this first off is horrible.

GUILFOYLE: It sounds like extortion.

SCOTT: Absolutely. It’s – first off, you think about the families at our state that are relying on this. Second, Justice Roberts said, The NFIB versus Sebelius, that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand ObamaCare. They say they can’t do that. So – and by the way they are not cutting our federal taxes in doing this. They did not say, “Oh, we will cut your federal taxes because we are going to cut out your program.” So our taxpayers are still paying for the federal government.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

SCOTT: But they are going to cut out a program and try to hold a gun to our head.

GUILFOYLE: All right. So when are you going to file this lawsuit?

SCOTT: We’re working with our attorney general, Pam Bondi. We have a great attorney general in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. That’s my friend.

SCOTT: We’ll work with them to make sure – yes. She is a good friends of yours. And we’re working with her to do this in the right manner. But we’re going –I’m going to stand up for every citizen in our state. One, the citizens that have a program that they are relying on, those that can’t afford their own health care, that’s one. Then two, the rest of our citizens that are saying, “You know, we are paying our federal taxes and we are not going to let the federal government tell us how to run our state.” That’s outrageous. It’s not what the Supreme Court allows. And so we’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, I think, you know, with Pam Bondi filing this and you on top of it, this is really a compelling issue. There are serious constitutional implications as a former prosecutor myself. It seems that you are on some serious strong ground with the president, with the comments from the chief justice that this should not be allowed and it should be precedent setting for other states if they are compelled in this way, forced against their will to expand and feed the behemoth that has become ObamaCare.

SCOTT: Absolutely. But don’t they care about the low income families that they have already created a program for in our state?

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

SCOTT: And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactic and when it’s appropriate they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want.

GUILFOYLE: Right. The penalty. Yes.

(Crosstalk)

SCOTT: That’s not the way the federal government is supposed to work. Absolutely. It’s not the way we expect our federal government. We’re supposed to be able to run our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, it’s a shakedown to the states. If you don’t do what we say….

SCOTT: Absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: . …because we’re gig bigger than you, and we’re going to bully you and we’re going to force you and penalize you and it’s really just hurting the lower income families by doing this.

SCOTT: Absolutely. One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully — this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.

GUILFOYLE: Well — but you’re standing up for all Floridians. So I think that’s fantastic. And you know, this is so important we get the message out there and that we learn about these issues because it’s going to be facing the other states as well. Governor, such a pleasure. Thank you for coming on here tonight.

SCOTT: Nice talking to you, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right.

SCOTT: Have a great evening.

Clinton Machinery has Sand in the Gears

Posted on by

The book hits the shelves today.

Then my buddy Charles Ortel has been digging deep for the last several weeks on the Clintons and ‘inurement’. Charles declares that the Foundations are actually to flawed to fix. The legal team and the inner circle of those employed by the Clinton Foundation(s) have stated there were mistakes and they are ‘re-filing tax returns. (do you get to do that?)

Per the Internal Revenue Service:

A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.

 

Judicial Watch Lawsuit Exposes ‘Clinton Cash Machine’

Judicial Watch’s independent work recently resulted in extensive coverage of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s corruption of the State Department.

A Judicial Watch lawsuit was central to the ongoing scandal involving the Clintons and the money they raised while Hillary was secretary of state.

Last year, Judicial Watch forced the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran, among others. The story on these documents that got the ball rolling can found be here. The headline says it all:  “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions.”

Dedicated investigating, legal work, and journalism (Judicial Watch’s Micah Morrison in partnership with The Washington Examiner) produced the key documents that led to much more investigating by others. Notably, Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer used Judicial Watch-produced documents to help with his headline-making book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. This book helped feed major media interest in the story that Judicial Watch has been highlighting since 2008.

The headlines tell the whole story:

Now, in the midst of this cavalcade of reporting on Clinton corruption, Judicial Watch has disclosed yet more documents in its Clinton accountability lawsuit.

The organization has recently highlighted 126 more pages of documents from the State Department related to Hillary Clinton’s conflicts of interest during her time as secretary of state. These documents were forced out of the State Department thanks to a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department back in May 2013.

Incredibly, the State Department has also turned over almost 1,000 records to the Clinton Foundation, beginning in January 2014, for review prior to public release.

The Obama State Department allowed Hillary Clinton to remove and destroy government email records, and now it has been made clear that the State Department has been improperly giving government documents to the Clinton operation – documents that should have been turned over to Judicial Watch and the American public years ago.

The latest group of documents again raises the specter of foreign potentates compromising American foreign policy by giving cash to the Clinton machine. One new document shows that State Department officials had concerns in January 2011 about Bill Clinton’s activities related to Saudi Arabia. An email chain, begun on January 25, 2011, includes several members of the State Department’s Legal Advisor Office, and the subject line “Clinton Foundation Request – Saudi entities.” The discussion is almost entirely redacted in the three-page email chain. This is Obama transparency at its best. If nothing else, Bill and Hillary have a friend in the Obama administration in helping cover their tracks. The timing of the email suggests it was about the Saudi government and that the event netted the Clintons $300,000.

We already have the documents about this lucrative event. The Clinton Foundation told the State Department he would participate in the 2011 Global Competiveness Forum, a five-day event in Riyadh. The event was co-sponsored by the Dabbagh Group Holding Co., which “comprises 28 autonomous companies, operating in diversified businesses in 30 countries. Mohammed Husnee Jazeel currently serves as Dabbagh Group’s CFO.” The Clinton Foundation described the event as:

[A]n annual meeting of global business leaders, international political leaders and selected academics and journalists. It was founded in 2006 by the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA) and is held under the patronage of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz.

Established in 2000, the SAGIA encourages investment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and provides licensing and support services to investors.

The “ticketed event” targeted “the Saudi Arabian business community.”

Also discussed is a Clinton Foundation request regarding an undisclosed country in Asia in August 2010: “Spoke to Jim [James H Thessin], on this and he plans to speak to the EAP [East Asian & Pacific Affairs] PDAS [Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary] and get his views.”

A June 2010 message chain addressed to then-Deputy Chief of Mission in Tanzania Larry E. Andre and others is labeled “URGENT RE: Clinton Foundation Issue, ” and states: “Former POTUS Clinton is on the ground in Tanzania… we need guidance fairly urgently to still be relevant.”

Also in the documents is a fully redacted June 2011 exchange between longtime Clinton associates Cheryl Mills and Doug Band.

Band assisted in creating the Clinton Global Initiative and is a founding partner and president of Teneo. Also previously disclosed, documents show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement between Bill Clinton and Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.

Mills defended Bill Clinton during his 1999 impeachment trial. She also was on the Clinton Foundation’s board prior to joining Mrs. Clinton at the State Department. Mills reportedly negotiated the “ethics agreement” on behalf of the Clintons and the Foundation that required the Clintons to submit to rigorous conflict-of-interest checks. Despite this, and in apparent violation of Obama administration ethics rules, the documents Judicial Watch forced out show Mills was involved in ethics reviews as chief of staff for Mrs. Clinton at the State Department.

There’s another interesting tidbit that speaks to Clinton cover-up tactics with which Americans are all too familiar. There’s a January 2013 email from Clinton Foundation Scheduler Margaret Steenburg to State Department attorneys saying a list of speech hosts for conflict-of-interest review was provided to them. The list, however, is conspicuously absent from the FOIA production documents.

The State Department just disclosed that it turned over 128 records to the Clinton Foundation for review under Exemption 4 of FOIA. Exemption 4 allows the withholding of commercial information about third parties that could cause them competitive harm. More than 1,000 records have been turned over to the Clinton Foundation under this unusual review process, resulting in more delay.

The lawsuit which first exposed the Clinton foreign fundraising racket at the State Department continues to be obstructed by Mrs. Clinton’s political operation. Remember that Mrs. Clinton is obstructing the release of information about the very scandal she is dismissing as “politics.”

With these revelations of State Department concerns about the Clinton machine’s Saudi and Asian dealings, this simple FOIA lawsuit is once again providing the road map for those tracking Hillary Clinton’s abuse of office as secretary of state. In the meantime, the State Department seems to be more concerned about helping Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign than following federal disclosure law.

Finally, the State Department promised to conduct a supplemental search of email records allegedly turned over late last year by Hillary Clinton. The State Department has been silent on obtaining or recovering other emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret accounts or any secret accounts of her top staff, including Cheryl Mills.  And it is silent as to when Judicial Watch will get those documents.

Judicial Watch’s litigation continues. As the Clinton campaign distracts, lies and denies, the court process will move forward and more truths about Hillary Clinton’s abuse of office will come to light.