Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

An interesting tweet from Frank H.

His hard drive crashed, sounds like someone was trying to hack him. Journalist get hacked anytime the powers that be want to home in on their sources. This guy is kicking the hornets nest for sure.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

And that proves what? That the blog writer who made the whole thing up has friends? Yippy for him.
It's still B.S.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Even Fox and Friends are reporting the pulled article.

See this twitter link that has an included video.

twitter.com...

Greetings,
No matter what happens, Hillary is entitled to a presidential pardon from barry hussein soetoro. Perhaps the Huffington Post staff has decided they prefer Stalinist, Bernie Sanders.

Unpleasant things can happen to those who investigate Hillary. Perhaps investigators should watch their backs.

a reply to: RickinVa

Here you go... Just to give an idea of the trouble Clinton has gotten herself into, and for Clinton supporters to adequately understand just how serious this is, here is a detailed list of the possible crimes with links so people can read it for themselves.

** As always when reading laws you will find the word "and" and the word "or" used. When the law lists the elements that must be broken to be in violation and uses the term -
* - "and" it means all elements must be broken to be in violation.
* - "or" it means each individual element stands on its own and a violation of an individual section is enough to be in violation of the law. **

The image below is the important part of the NDA she signed.

Click to enlarge -


Signed NDA - Full - **PDF**

The laws in question -

* - 18 USC Chapter 37 - Espionage Act
A - 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

B - 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general)

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

This is not a complete list and is based on publicly available info. I would imagine the f eds list will be a lot longer given they are investigating more than just the E-mail scandal (Clinton foundation law violations).

List of possible Crimes

* - 18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
* - 18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally (False Statements)
* - 18 USC § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
* - 18 USC § 208 - Acts affecting a personal financial interest
* - 18 USC § 1341 - Frauds and swindles
* - 18 USC § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
* - 18 USC § 1349 - Attempt and conspiracy
* - 18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (Obstruction of Justice)
* - 18 USC § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
* - 18 USC § 1621 - Perjury generally
* - 18 USC § 1622 - Subornation of perjury
* - 18 USC § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court
* - 18 USC § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally
* - 18 USC § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
* - 18 USC § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
* - 26 USC § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
* - 26 USC § 7212 - Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws

a reply to: BIGPoJo

I'm glad Hard Drives are on their way out. The "My hard drive crashed" excuse used to work in the 1990's, but it's a very rare event today.

a reply to: carewemust

...but it's a very rare event today.

Are you being facetious?

I just had a hard drive crash in my main PC (it's sitting on the desk in front of me as I type) recently. And oddly enough, that crash coincided with my posting about sensitive topics, even though I'm sure it was not related at all; it just so happened that the boot sector went bad right after I posted some things I found researching a different topic.



X, thank you for the list of possible criminal violations Hillary could be recommended for indictment of by the FBI.

I am flabbergasted that people just eat up Hillary's blatant lies and that they are completely taken in by her spin regardless of the objective and verifiable facts on display.

PT Barnum and Goebbels had a lot in common, didn't they?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BIGPoJo

And that proves what? That the blog writer who made the whole thing up has friends? Yippy for him.
It's still B.S.

.....and you know the whole thing is made up, how? Just as there is no proof that it's true. I know you want to protect your girl's good name.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BIGPoJo

And that proves what? That the blog writer who made the whole thing up has friends? Yippy for him.
It's still B.S.

.....and you know the whole thing is made up, how? Just as there is no proof that it's true. I know you want to protect your girl's good name.

It might also be true that Trump partnered with Putin running a European, high-end prostitution ring...But if some Blogger posted it to HuffPo as fact and did not provide any sources I'd expect them to pull the article as well.

If this avowed Bernie supporter/blogger had sources or hard evidence he would not have tried to paste it to huffpo's blogger stream, he would have sold it to any of a dozen papers for big bucks.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: Sillyolme

Even Fox and Friends are reporting the pulled article.

See this twitter link that has an included video.

twitter.com...

Fox and Friends? Lol. They would report that the sun has left the sky and add a correction later.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
a reply to: Sillyolme

Even Fox and Friends are reporting the pulled article.

See this twitter link that has an included video.

twitter.com...

Fox and Friends? Lol. They would report that the sun has left the sky and add a correction later.

Why would they correct it? It leaves my sky every day.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: carewemust

...but it's a very rare event today.

Are you being facetious?

I just had a hard drive crash in my main PC (it's sitting on the desk in front of me as I type) recently. And oddly enough, that crash coincided with my posting about sensitive topics, even though I'm sure it was not related at all;

Uh oh! They are after you too!

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: reldra
This thread obviously has no focus. It is on 73 flags and 13 pages and based on a made up blog.

I can see the blog writer is a HARDCORE Sanders fan. He picked a holiday weekend day to put that blog up in HuffPo 'contributors'. A good plan, if you want to put up a fake article with no sources and let it get screen shotted before anyone noticed. I applaud his thought process in order to be fairly successful in his plan.

But really, people HERE fall for it hook, line and sinker. That is sad.

We demand a certain level of sources in most of our threads..but this one got away with NONE?

I would hope that all threads meet your level of scrutiny.

They don't have to. But this meets no standards.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical
being struck by lightning is rare to, but when it happens to you, you tend to think that is more common than it is.

a reply to: reldra

This is a conspiracy site. When an explosive story is published by an author who stands by his statement that he has sources, but the publication has never asked him for them, and the publication is giving him no reasoning for pulling the story - that is something worth investigating.

If it was not for a site like ATS that allowed questioning such things, then who would?

5/30/16

The FBI will “Blow the Whistle” if Hillary Clinton is not Indicted. “They’re Going Public”

This is bombshell announcement! Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) just shared damning news for Hillary Clinton on The Steve Malzberg Show just now:

The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.

“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said Monday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”
...
Team Hillary is already admitting this will likely happen.

a reply to: BlueAjah

That is a re-hash of a old article.... that same thing was posted months ago.


Hillary Hillary Hillary......


What about the other people involved? Mills, Abedin, Sullivan and the others?

Somebody was taking stuff off the TS network and emailing it to Hillarys unclassified server....

I am in a quandry on whether it was one or two people.


I will go with a guesstimate of 70% chance it was Huma, 30% chance it was Sullivan.

Hillary is just the big fish..... plenty of little minnows to scoop up in the process.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: reldra

This is a conspiracy site. When an explosive story is published by an author who stands by his statement that he has sources, but the publication has never asked him for them, and the publication is giving him no reasoning for pulling the story - that is something worth investigating.

The "author" is a loon and this was his first "article"...He has no sources, except maybe the voices in his head.

He is known as "Crazy Frank" to the Ultimate Frisbee community...He has tried his hands at all kinds of New Age - send me money stuff..He simply is not all-there..

skydmagazine.com...
cannonfire.blogspot.com...

a reply to: BlueAjah

Suppose, as is likely, the Attorney General pursues no action against Clinton.

Clinton can be still impeached by the House of Representatives for actions taken during prior Federal employment.

Because the consequences of impeachment and conviction include removal from office (not currently relevant), *and* a ban on future Federal employment (in this case, relevant), it is not a symbolic gesture, and the House would have jurisdiction.

It would be politically explosive but if Clinton were leading seriously in September and October, the House might decide to roll the dice and go for it. The House Judiciary Committee could call as witnesses, under oath, the FBI investigators and bring the information to pubilc. There would not be a 2/3rds majority for conviction in the Senate, but the information would be out there and potentially dissuade independents from voting for her even if they don't cross over to Trump.