The latest trove of Clinton campaign emails is providing interesting reading for those looking for sure signs of corruption in the Clinton campaign camp. One of them suggests that Clinton used her influence to threaten Supreme Court justices.

In June 2015, the Supreme Court was still deliberating on King v. Burwell, a case that could have ended ObamaCare. This outcome wasn’t favorable for Clinton, and the email details tactics used to put pressure on the judges.

[Scroll Down for Video]

On June 2, 2015, Neera Tanden (president of the leftist Center for American Progress) emailed Clinton advisor Jake Sullivan. Her solution to the undecided court was simple: threaten the judges.

“As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off.”

10142016-a5

Tanden’s strategy was to make the justices aware of the “negative political consequences to ruling against the government.” The consequences would be planting stories in the media that make the make-up of the court a bigger election issue.

“Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It’s not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision…the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue.”

10142016-a3

“We can get that story started,” Tanden wrote back.  “[But it] rests on you guys to make it stick.”

Jennifer Palmieri (communications director) approved the approach. Brian Fallon (press secretary) offered to help with spread the word.

10142016-a1

This development has riled those who place their faith in the American political system’s checks and balances. What Clinton’s camp is saying, quite openly, is that they would put out articles that cast an overtly political light on previous court decisions. While the politicization of Supreme Court nominees is nothing new, the judges, once appointed, are not beholden to any party. And to think that a president or presidential candidate might sway judicial opinion with threats erodes the very core of American political identity.