Hillary-vote

A lawyer who has filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case against Bill and Hillary Clinton and their family foundation, alleging it is more or less a criminal enterprise to benefit the Clintons, has renewed his request for a federal court to take control of a thumb drive reportedly held by the Clintons’ lawyer.

That thumb drive and its contents all of a sudden have been in the news, with reports on Wednesday that the FBI has kicked off an investigation into the type of security Hillary Clinton used to safeguard the private email system she set up in her New York home while serving as U.S. secretary of state.

The move came after two inspectors general in the government noted there was classified information in the emails that had been run through the extra-governmental computer system.

The report of the investigation prompted David Kendall, Hillary Clinton’s attorney, to release a statement: “Quite predictably, after the [intelligence community inspectors general] made a referral to ensure that materials remain properly stored, the government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials.”

Just in time for the 2016 election, hear Hillary Clinton say she would NOT run for president, in “Hillary Unhinged” by Thomas Kuiper.

Kendall said he and Clinton were “actively cooperating” with the FBI. At the same time, Clinton’s campaign sought to downplay the news, and paint it as no big deal.

“WaPs story tonite doesn’t change anything we knew 10 days ago after nYT fixed botched report: IG sent ask to [Department of Justice] to confirm emails are secure,” tweeted Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary.

Clinton’s use of her private email server for public business has been the talk of Capitol Hill for some time. Since March, and the discovery of her email system, various congressional members have demanded more information to discern whether her correspondences ever included sensitive or classified information. The email server scandal has also driven down Clinton’s poll numbers for the presidency, fueling voters’ perceptions of her as untrustworthy.

Reports are that Kendall has possession of a thumb drive that contains some of the emails in question.

Attorney Larry Klayman, of Freedom Watch, filed the RICO case against the Clinton’s several months ago, and the Clintons have been trying to have it dismissed. Recently, a judge suspended plans for depositions by the Clintons pending resolution of other issues.

Klayman’s new motion asks the court to “take into custody” the thumb drive “in current possession of her counsel David Kendall.”

“This thumb drive apparently contains, according to reports (Exhibit 1), not only government information but also classified government information,” Klayman wrote.

He argues that “some of the predicate acts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint concern Defendant Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized release, in exchange for financial gain, of classified information concerning U.S.-Israeli war planning to wage a [preemptive] strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and the joint U.S.-Israeli cyber-attack on Iranian nuclear centrifuges with a virus named Stuxnet.”

He called the reported FBI investigation “most remarkable” since “the FBI is under the arm of the Obama Justice Department and thus, for the FBI to be forced into action under the watchful eye of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, there must be merit to these new revelations.”

He noted, “Plaintiff has not requested to see the documents, hard and thumb drives at this time, but simply asked that this court take them into its custody for safekeeping.”

Klayman previously argued it would be wrong to fail to air the allegations and evidence in court. He earlier asked for court custody of the drive, too.

A federal court in Florida already has scheduled a trial for early next year.

“This is a classic RICO lawsuit,” Klayman has argued, “Indeed … few people – if any – can even attempt to refute the hard evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation have over a 10-year history of actually selling government access and influence in exchange for hard cash to fill their coffers and the coffers of their foundation, which not coincidentally, as pled, does not operate as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization but instead operates as defendants Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own alter-ego in furthering their criminal enterprise.”

He said the case is about much more than access to hidden documents, which he is seeking.

“The production of documents at issue is relevant because they evidence a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … created and further by each of the defendants, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, acting in concert as part of a conspiracy, to extort hundreds of millions of dollars in money – that is, bribes – from individuals, entities and persons upon which the defendants have bestowed favors and gratuities, principally in the form of granting waivers to do business with Iran. ”

The allegations, he explained, set “forth all of the operative facts to plead a valid RICO claim.”

You don’t have to wonder about Hillary Clinton any longer, read her words for yourself, in “Hillary Unhinged.”

He said the case “must proceed expeditiously” because of a discovery deadline of Sept. 28 and the trial date of Jan. 25, 2016. His arguments came in response to a Clinton request to dismiss.

“Defendants’ attempts to delay discovery are as transparent as their non-meritorious motions to dismiss. Needless to say, the court should not accept defendants’ lack of reasoned analysis of the factual content of” the complaint,” he wrote.

“It is simply too early to dismiss any portion of plaintiff’s claims where so much information is alleged to provide both notice and a likelihood that more material and predicate acts will be learned through discovery.”

The case brought by Klayman pleads “multiple acts of racketeering activity by travel in interstate or international travel for the purpose of bribery, money laundering and obstruction of justice.”

“These actions were done with the specific purpose of defrauding plaintiff and others out of hundreds of millions of dollars in donations,” he said.

He alleges, for example, that Hillary Clinton “granted a waiver to Victor Pinchuk and his company Interpipe Group as an exemption from U.S. congressional sanctions against doing business with Iran.”

He alleges that was “as a quid pro quo for bribes disguised as donations made to The Clinton Foundation.”

He said the company “then, using the wires and mails and other illegal means fraudulently, donated $2.35 million to The Clinton Foundation.”

Klayman said there was ample relevant information to bolster his case.

Klayman submitted copies of a Washington Times report that the Clintons’ foundation “set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.”

Further, another article submitted by Klayman, from the Miami Herald, reported banks were paying huge fees to Bill Clinton for speeches at a delicate time.

“Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. … All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption,” the report said.

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s multiple attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order setting the case for trial comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

But estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with foreign governments making donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

 

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.