Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Liquesence

Comey is giving his people lie detector tests to prevent leaks... If the author of the article had a source inside the FBI or DOJ and named them they would instantly lose their job and face other consequences. Even if he says he got it from someone in the FBI they could probably still figure out who that person is pretty easily.

Shouldn't it be enough that he says he "has sources and corroboration" since that seems to be the same criteria (simply stating such) that most other articles people consider legit do?

The source doesn't have to be in the FBI, it could be in the Clinton campaign for all we know or even the Justice Dept. Now the author is claiming that his sources are telling him she could drop out sometime this week.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Liquesence

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true. 

Entertaining an idea and trying to find more information does not constitute belief. But then, you know that.

Some of us simply want to see the supposed evidence, so we can form an accurate opinion, instead of taking some random, incredible guy's word for something we want and hope to be true.

Which member can you point out that is stopping you?

Some people, and a large majority it appears, seem to entertain ideas as their true belief. That's the problem.

No one is stopping anyone, and I neither said nor implied that any member was.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Liquesence

Comey is giving his people lie detector tests to prevent leaks... If the author of the article had a source inside the FBI or DOJ and named them they would instantly lose their job and face other consequences. Even if he says he got it from someone in the FBI they could probably still figure out who that person is pretty easily.

Shouldn't it be enough that he says he "has sources and corroboration" since that seems to be the same criteria (simply stating such) that most other articles people consider legit do?

The source doesn't have to be in the FBI, it could be in the Clinton campaign for all we know or even the Justice Dept. Now the author is claiming that his sources are telling him she could drop out sometime this week.

...and THAT'S why I'm really enjoying this thread!!!

Did he say the Clinton Foundation will still get shut down?

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Liquesence

Comey is giving his people lie detector tests to prevent leaks... If the author of the article had a source inside the FBI or DOJ and named them they would instantly lose their job and face other consequences. Even if he says he got it from someone in the FBI they could probably still figure out who that person is pretty easily.

Shouldn't it be enough that he says he "has sources and corroboration" since that seems to be the same criteria (simply stating such) that most other articles people consider legit do?

Now the author is claiming that his sources are telling him she could drop out sometime this week.

Waiting with popcorn.

a reply to: Liquesence

Yeah it wasn't worth responding to. Some person posts something random on the Internet, now Hillary is being indicted. No one can be successful in life with a mind that has the capacity to make those conclusions.

Someone once told me that 1+1=3. The statement is so compelling that it must be discussed! We know it equals 2 and we know Hillary isn't being indicted, but why stop these people from keeping their hopes up? They're salivating at the thought of taking Clinton down and would lock her up without trial if they could. Same goes for the other side with Trump. Personally, I want them to perform a thorough investigation and find out if there was any wrong doing without all the media and political interference which they are doing a good job of so far. If no wrong doing is found, let's stfu and get on with our lives. Of course, some people will want her removed and jailed regardless. Even if the facts say she is innocent (which I don't believe she is at this point).

a reply to: introvert

I think I'm pretty clear when I am discussing things speculatively vs. posting verifiable fact; you've taught me a lot and made me hone my arguments constantly.

See, I think the email/server thing is tied in the the CF/SD conflicts of interest. I also think that Bryan Pagliano (who's .pst file, not just emails, is missing) played a crucial role in that aspect as well considering he was paid by both the State Department & Clinton Foundation at the same time (and yes, I can back this up if you want) undisclosed to the State Department at the time.

Then there are the speaking fees Bill got while Hillary was SecState that come to mind for other items of interest.

There is plenty of dirt to find when you start looking in to the Clintons. You're somewhat correct about saying this whole email thing is minor compared to other possible avenues of investigation that could be made, and the FBI is looking into the Clinton Foundation as well as the classified information on a non-secure server aspect as you know, however it all does stem from the fact that Hillary was not careful with confidential information that the dirtiness of the Clinton Foundation was able to be brought to light.

It's all connected, which is why you can't take any of it without looking at all of it.

Bill AND Hillary are the ones who are at the center of their little web, they didn't accidentally take advantage of Hillary's position independent of one another and they couldn't have done as much as they have without lots of help.

One big takeaway (for me at least) from the State Department OIG report is this:

In its most recent annual assessment of records management, NARA identified similar weaknesses across the Federal Government with regard to electronic records in particular. NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments.

It wasn't just the State Department that leaked like a sieve electronically, it looks like that is a systemic problem.

The Clintons' (not just Hillary) problem could be that was turned in to a money making scheme and if they did that, then they are all (whomever can be tied to it's operations) is in deep deep trouble.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Liquesence

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true. 

Entertaining an idea and trying to find more information does not constitute belief. But then, you know that.

Some of us simply want to see the supposed evidence, so we can form an accurate opinion, instead of taking some random, incredible guy's word for something we want and hope to be true.

Which member can you point out that is stopping you?

Some people, and a large majority it appears, seem to entertain ideas as their true belief. That's the problem.

No one is stopping anyone, and I neither said nor implied that any member was.

Got any proof for that first line?

a reply to: butcherguy

To that I would say just look around ATS for 60 seconds

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That could be true and there may be some teeth to that, but we need some real proof before we jump too far. The private email/server aspect is all but DOA. That is why some are taking this approach. There may be something to it, but we need to have evidence before we commit.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: butcherguy

To that I would say just look around ATS for 60 seconds

I am talking about the subject of the OP.
If you read the Hillary email threads you will see a lot of posts where members are finding proof that Hillary broke not just SD rules, but the law.

If investigators never believed that it was possible that a perpetrator committed a crime, very few people would ever be arrested.

a reply to: introvert

There's a thread that shows that here,, and IAMTAT, I believe found proof of the CF/SD connection and it also discussed how open the server was during that time:

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hillary's PAC had complete control of her private server for 4 months, while she was Secretary of State.

EDIT: Could THIS be the "election stuff" Guccifer stated he saw on Hillary's server when he (allegedly) hacked it?

Although Hillary publicly claimed that the server was originally installed for President Clinton's use and had many safeguards; that was not the case.

The server was actually purchased by her political action committee during the 2008 campaign and installed in her house. The PAC continued to control it. Bryan Pagliano, formerly the IT specialist for Hillary's campaign, was given responsibility for maintaining the PAC's server.

Hillary's leadership PAC paid Pagliano for his work during the first four months that Hillary was Secretary of State. He obviously had no security clearance at that time, either.

After April 2009, Pagliano was hired by the State Department and was responsible for the server. So, for several months, all of the Secretary of State's official emails were processed through a server in her house that was paid for and maintained by her political organization.

www.onepoliticalplaza.com...

a reply to: butcherguy

I'll let the investigators determine if Hillary broke the law, not posters on ATS.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: BIGPoJo

You may have just made my year if this is true! I owe you a beer!

I found this from last August. Hmmm....

Judge dismisses racketeering case against Clintons

A federal judge has dismissed a racketeering case accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving out official favors in exchange for financial contributions to her family foundation.

The long-shot lawsuit from conservative legal activist Larry Klayman was filed in March and tossed out Tuesday because Klayman did not have standing to sue and was unable to show the depth of the Clintons' alleged criminal enterprise.

Klayman’s court filings do “not allege any facts” to support his claim that he has been hurt by the Clintons’ alleged scheme, Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote.

“Critically, [Klayman] fails to allege how [Clinton’s] mail or wire fraud, which allegedly involved obtaining money from others, directly injured [him].” Middlebrooks added. “Therefore, the relationship between [Clinton’s] mail or wire fraud and [Klayman’s] alleged compromised ability to earn a living is too remote” to meet the legal test.

Yeah. she'll get away with it again too.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Again, that is just fodder for speculation. It does not justify the absolutes people are speaking.

Show me the money...

a reply to: butcherguy

Clinton did break the law and the one law in question is the end of her political career. Specifically the emails that contained confidential, secret, top secret and SCI designation.

While the Democrats and talking heads keep trying to downplay this portion of her many scandals by constantly trying to argue no law was broken because there was no intent to do so by Hillary are intentionally being misleading / outright lying.

The part of the espionage act that she violated only requires "gross negligence" to be in violation of it. Intent has absolutely no bearing on the violation. The part she violated is a Felony with a prison term of 10 years.

The other thing to consider is, if charges come, how they will treat the violations. Will the 2,000 +/- flagged emails be considered 1 violation or will they each be individual violations.

With that said her Clinton Foundation crimes will most likely be the more serious since we are talking about public corruption and giving favors in exchange for money.

Either way she is done and her supporters should start accepting that as fact.

These are just some of the possible charges -
* - violation of the espionage act - several sections of it.
* - Conspiracy
* - Obstruction
* - Destruction of federal records
* - Perjury
* - Public corruption

etc

Even better is the fact the Senate never confirmed anyone to the IG position assigned to the State Department. Hillary went without an IG all 4 years.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

TOP thread on ATS. Congrats, OP.
Please continue to keep us posted on your discussions with the author.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I bet there isn't a single Hillary supporter on ATS that has actually taken the time to down load and read the briefing materials that come with the SF-312.

If they had read it, they would easily understand why what she did was wrong, and why she will be recommended for indictment.

It is a very straight forward document....

It starts with:

"Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information."

It ends with:

I have read this Agreement carefully and my questions, if any, have been answered. I acknowledge that the briefing officer has made available to me the Executive Order and statutes referenced in this agreement and its implementing regulation (32 CFR Section 2003.20) so that I may read them at this time, if I so choose.

It is what is between that opening statement and the closing statement that is what is going to get her recommended for indictment.

It is not rocket science.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Quoting the author of the blog post:

I've got sources telling me that they will drop the case if the drops out of the race. I hope this isn't true, the DNC is complicit in election fraud.

So we are to believe him...because he said so?

I hardly find that logical or credible.

I take the position that the press should not be required to name sources unless the source has deliberately lied to the press. Whether or not the source deliberately lied is not known yet.

Therefore, I believe the author of the piece, from the OP, has a right to protect their source's identity and report them as 'unnamed' for the time being.

Even the 'high and mighty' MAJOR news media report on news coming from 'unnamed sources,' all the time.

As long as the author of the OP article has stated their source's wish to remain anonymous, no one is being misled and there's no good reason for the HuffPo to have pulled the article.

That said, they may come up with a good reason, but as of now, I have not read that they have provided one, even at the author's request.

Like "Deep Throat" for the longest time.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Liquesence

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true. 

Entertaining an idea and trying to find more information does not constitute belief. But then, you know that.

Some of us simply want to see the supposed evidence, so we can form an accurate opinion, instead of taking some random, incredible guy's word for something we want and hope to be true.

Which member can you point out that is stopping you?

Some people, and a large majority it appears, seem to entertain ideas as their true belief. That's the problem.

No one is stopping anyone, and I neither said nor implied that any member was.

Got any proof for that first line?

That's why I said "seem" and "appear."

I never said they *are* or *were*.

So just let me get this straight,

Everyone seems to be waiting for a court system hat was built by and serves these rich sobs to bring them to justice. Ooookkayyyyyy

Make no mistake, the system doesn't bring down these people unless they've screwed up or are of no use and need to be compromised for one reason or other or to bring them in line of they step out of it.