Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

a reply to: alomaha


I doubt very seriously if Comey can be pressured. Everything I have read about the man seems to indicate he has some very strong core beliefs.

Probably one of the best FBI agents you could ask for to deal with a mess of this magnitude and publicity in a fair straight forward manner.

The only thing people seem to be waiting on now is for Hillary to be interviewed. I am not so sure that already hasn't taken place to some degree.

We just wait.

a reply to: alomaha

I think the HuffPost just jumped the gun.
They may have thought they were about to get 'scooped'...then realized they weren't...or...
since they're pushing for Bernie...they popped it in...pulled it...then replaced it with an article saying Hillary voters should jump to Bernie before news she's been recommended for indictment comes out.

a reply to: RickinVa


Pressured in a way to do it sooner rather than later if that is true. Not in the way to do it if it wasn't his intention anyway. If journalists ask him tomorrow if he is going to do it ( make a recomodation), he could not lie and say no if is going to do it.

I would say toss this into the hoax bin unless something new comes out..but for now, looks like just a bit of bs.

a reply to: alomaha

He's giving his considered opinion of the knowledge he has acquired. At least that's the way I read it. It's a pretty well expressed prediction. He's obviously not going to rat his sources so he didn't quote them.
It's within the realm of possibilities that it will go down as he predicted. I don't think it will happen before the convention or possibly even before the election.
As suggested by another poster, her choice of vp is going to be interesting.

The Democrats in our area are in full scale revolt against her. They describe the choices offered them by their own party as, "They're asking us to pick either the horse manure or the bull manure. Do we want the Nazi or the Communist?" The Sanders campaign is the only real activity in the Democrat party in Kentucky. They're in a bit of disarray after their defeat in the last statewide elections.

It should be an interesting spectacle whatever takes place. As long as we have bread, I'm sure we'll enjoy the circus!

It's a sad testament that Democrat voters would nominate someone with so many past/present/future problems as their Presidential candidate. The DNC couldn't do any better than this? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I would say toss this into the hoax bin unless something new comes out..but for now, looks like just a bit of bs.

I second the hoax bin..

It was an overzealous blogger using the huff for his agenda. No proof was offered.

Huffington managers surely flipped their lids after discovering a blogger posted the article. I bet someone used the "report this for abuse" button
Then whamo.. Article gone..

But not fast enough to stop the creation of a whole lot of heart breaks..

Like mine .. I was so hoping it was true..

B

originally posted by: carewemust
It's a sad testament that Democrat voters would nominate someone with so many past/present/future problems as their Presidential candidate. The DNC couldn't do any better than this? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Unfortunately, the voters don't get to pick who runs fror the nomination. They get to go to the polls and pull the lever for puppet 1, 2 or 3.

Anybody this cycle that refuses to not just vote party lines has a situation on their hands that I do not envy.

a reply to: RickinVa

One slight to moderately plausible strategy that might lend some . . . currency . . . to this assertion could be that

IF

the oligarchy, as some insist, are setting the more known globalists et al up to be trashed, sacrificed . . . to delude the populace into thinking that the tyrants have been dealt with . . . while a deeper, darker, MORE ruthless and far less known layer of the same demonized jerks moves into place more or less uncontested . . .

THEN

I could imagine them sacrificing the gritchy one as part of that strategy.

Or, perhaps they just want to use her to help foment a really nasty civil war.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: alomaha

He's giving his considered opinion of the knowledge he has acquired. At least that's the way I read it. It's a pretty well expressed prediction. He's obviously not going to rat his sources so he didn't quote them.
It's within the realm of possibilities that it will go down as he predicted. I don't think it will happen before the convention or possibly even before the election.
As suggested by another poster, her choice of vp is going to be interesting.

The Democrats in our area are in full scale revolt against her. They describe the choices offered them by their own party as, "They're asking us to pick either the horse manure or the bull manure. Do we want the Nazi or the Communist?" The Sanders campaign is the only real activity in the Democrat party in Kentucky. They're in a bit of disarray after their defeat in the last statewide elections.

It should be an interesting spectacle whatever takes place. As long as we have bread, I'm sure we'll enjoy the circus!

So lets say this is the case people, up or not...you think Hillary is awake tonight preparing things for the worst case scenario and shakin in her boots? I am sorry to admit I hope he is right, I hope she ain't slept a wink, and I hope she keeps panicking at each moth that flies into her front door making a knocking tap.

So this hoax is still up and gathering stars and flags?

Sad.....

originally posted by: muse7
So this hoax is still up and gathering stars and flags?

Sad.....

Still getting bumped too, unfortunately.

=(

Well, at least we can hope (hope, hope, hope) that readers realize that if it's on Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, WND (really?), et al it's automatically suspect. Same with any other 'sources' that are spreading this around....

know your sources, people.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder about this place....you all do realize that the National Enquirer, the Globe, Star, Us, Hello, and all those other rags are just BS, right? They're just ridiculous headline fiction. The Onion at least is actually funny.
Don't be one of those people who think the National Enquirer is real news. Would you buy them off the rack at the grocery store? Then don't read them online either. Or if you do, realize that they are bullcrap lies.

Don't believe bunk!
*sigh*
I know it's hard, but you have to actually do some homework to get real knowledge. I know some members refuse to listen to actual intelligent sources - I guess the words are just too big, the sentences are too long, and the attention deficit plague of the 'information age' (along with hysterical paranoia and gullibility) get in the way.

/shrug

I would have been delighted if this were true....

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Something is not right here.

The author of the supposed (HuffPost) article is Frank Huguenard, according to the screenshot in the OP.

I don't know anything about him, but a quick search reveals he's a filmmaker, and he doesn't seem to be credible IMO. The description on that Screenshot says "scientist, filmmaker, speaker." And software engineer?

I can't find much of anything he's written, or that he's written much of anything that makes him credible.

Where would he have gotten such information?

Something is not right here.

ETA:

This "article" has the exact same three opening paragraphs as the OP, but doesn't list an author. It shows who posted it, and also somewhat ascribes authorship to him, but that's suspect.

It's a real piece, so who wrote it? There must be a good reason no legitimate organizations are running with it. And *if* is was truly posted on HuffPost and hastily deleted, it could have been prematurely posted without verification.

^This right here.

Who the hell is Frank Huguenard and why should he be believed?

For most of this thread people have just run with the "blog" without even actually looking into its veracity, its supposed author, or anything.

There are few traces of any valid information but yet it's believed by so many (who want to believe it).

a reply to: alomaha

He wouldn't have to answer at all. He's been asked by journalists and his answer is always the same. "We do not comment on ongoing investigations"

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Well, at least we can hope (hope, hope, hope) that readers realize that if it's on Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, WND (really?), et al it's automatically suspect. Same with any other 'sources' that are spreading this around....

know your sources, people.

...And, don't forget, the original source...Huffington Post. That must now be considered the most 'suspect' source.

Think twice before anyone considers siting THEM for a story.
EDIT: I used to consider them one of the more credible of the liberal sources...Now, not so much.

All everyone (including OP) is doing is repeating a HOAX headline, made by a huffpo blogger. Huffington Post removed the blog post for valid reason, it is not true. No matter how much you may wish it to be true, you still can't just make up a headline.

Huffington Post allows many blogger to post their own content:

This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site.

But apparently that doesn't include posting hoaxes. Shame it's now being repeated ad nauseam.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Exactly.

It is (or was) an opinion piece published with little to no veracity by someone with little to no credibility, was summarily deleted (likely for these same reasons), and has not been picked up by any legitimate news outlets.

It's immediately suspect, and people run with it without little to no checking.

Just because people *want* something to be true doesn't mean that is *is* true.

Shame.

a reply to: Liquesence

nope, he crimes have been identified and they are in back channel talks on how its going to happen. One guy managed to over hear what was happening, but was not cleared to publish. It will come out eventually.

What if the author of the article was paid by the Hillary campaign to put it up there. HuffPost pulls it right away, because there is no confirmation for the story.
Why would the Hillary camp do that?
It could be that the word is out in the insider circles that an indictment will be handed down. Putting the word out as a hoax would soften the blow a bit for Hillary, putting more doubt in the mind of prospective Hillary voters that there is any wrongdoing.
This might make it easier for Hillary to use her standard defense of 'some evil cabal wants to prevent a woman from being POTUS.
I know it is a reach, but if she knows something is coming, and she very well might, she will have to do the damndest things to save her run.