Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

The video goes back to Jan. 25th.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I just found this article from political insider. I quotes Sen. Tom Delay as saying if DOJ doesnt prosecute, that the FBI will.
www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Hooolld up..
The article doesnt say the FBI wil indict. Its not possible as they are for investigative purposes..
The FBI reccomends indictment.
The DOJ is left with the responsibility to carry out any indictment upon the findings of the FBI.

Instead the article says the FBI will publish the dirty laundry and try her in public.

B

Edited to add that if anyine thinks Hillary's friend Loretta Lynch will indict without being forced to then you dont know politics. . hopefully the FBI has a 1000% slam dunk case that forces her hand.

originally posted by: Bspiracy

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I just found this article from political insider. I quotes Sen. Tom Delay as saying if DOJ doesnt prosecute, that the FBI will.
www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

Hooolld up..
The article doesnt say the FBI wil indict. Its not possible as they are for investigative purposes..
The FBI reccomends indictment.
The DOJ is left with the responsibility to carry out any indictment upon the findings of the FBI.

Instead the article says the FBI will publish the dirty laundry and try her in public.

B

I had this thought as well but perhaps stems from a semantic oversight. The definitions for indict from Webster:
1
: to charge with a fault or offense : criticize, accuse
2
: to charge with a crime by the finding or presentment of a jury (as a grand jury) in due form of law


I think perhaps they mean to say if the DOJ fails to indict [2], then the FBI will indict [1] her themselves.

Still misleading language, imo.

a reply to: Bspiracy

Actually, the article said the FBI will leak details of the investigation to the public if the DOJ does not follow through with an indictment. Also, it is not completely accurate either to say the FBI recommends indictment because they work in tandem with DOJ lawyers to put together this case. In other words, they have been cooperating since the start. Keep in mind it was the DOJ that granted Bryan Pagliano immunity. If they had plans of not indicting then why would they go through that difficult process. Not to mention, if it turns out the case against Clinton is overwhelming then Lynch can't simply ignore it... it doesn't work that way. She would be impeached for blocking an overwhelming indictment from proceeding for purely political reasons.

Yeah, should have checked the date on that one, but it was at the top so I wrongly assumed it was new. Still, when one adds up all the ennuendo and articles it is hard not to think their isnt some truth. I would have thought the clinton lawyers would have filed slander or libel lawsuits?

a reply to: filched

Lynch doesn't have to block it...but she COULD drag her feet on the indictment. No?

a reply to: [post=20792417]

Laugh.
How twisty one word can be ..

Imagine all the others that are gonna be twisted.

Such as a bj doesnt mean "sexual relations"

Crazy family needs to be purged from all offices.

B

a reply to: atomish

The FBI can't indict directly, they don't have the legal authority. They recommend indictment based upon the finding of facts in their criminal investigation, it is then up the the Department of Justice to file the indictments and prosecute the case.

If the DoJ will not follow through, congress could appoint an independent prosecutor to take the case on their behalf, but the FBI cannot prosecute a case.

They can give testimony during any proceedings in addition to the evidence presented though.

Keeping in mind the DoJ's scorecard, I can easily imagine this happening.

a reply to: IAMTAT

This is true, but if she gets recommended for indictment before the convention it won't matter the outcome by Lynch. The DNC will drop her like a bad habit since that will just be the beginning of her troubles. No one will vote for her knowing the FBI found, after their year long investigation, that she committed felonies involving mishandling classified information and possibly put national security in danger (not to mention the public corruption investigation still pending which has a much wider scope).

Politically, she is already losing to Trump in the polls and after a recommendation the point will be further solidified that she in unelectable, even to her most ardent supporters. Just look at the fallout from the IG Report. The entire MSM which has previously bolstered her despite all the baggage turned left overnight.

a reply to: [post=20792425]filched[/pospos

I recognized the FBI would do the public deal if the DOJ failed to prosecute.

I think Pagliano was given immunity by the DOJ as a preemptive HELP for hillary. Dont ask me how because no one knows whats really happening behind the crony doors.. But Hillary and Lorretta are surely pals..

I can just hope the FBI makes a case of titanium.

B

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

Indeed, I understand the distinction. But a very good summation nonetheless.

I probably wasn't clear in what I meant. I was simply pointing out that someone claiming the FBI may indict her if the DOJ doesn't isn't necessarily fibbing if they are using the non-legal definition of the word in reference to the FBI (while almost certainly using the legal definition when referring to the DOJ in the same breath). I.e. if I accuse you of stealing my pack of handi server-wipe cloths, that is an indictment of you, in my understanding of it. An absolutely non-legally binding one but an indictment nonetheless.

And my over-riding point was that, even if this was the case, it may be a disingenuous attempt at misleading others to try and confuse the two.

The wild west would have dealt with this differently......

clint eastwood Hang 'Em High (1968)

a reply to: Bspiracy

Pagliano is the key to the whole thing.

Guccifer opened Pandora's box and out popped Pags.

He better be under coconstant protection. I'm sure he's already been deposed but surely prosecution and defense attorneys will want to question him.

Remember his .pst file is missing from when he was at the State Department and that's more than just emails.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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

Sad.....

Its not a hoax. Do you have evidence of a hoax? I contacted the author and he said that he doesn't know why they took it down.

Did he have anything else to say about it?

Negative, he is mum for the moment. I will reach out to him again with some more questions. In the mean time check out his YouTube channel.

www.youtube.com...

He is now claiming that he does have sources and corroboration. He predicts that she will make a deal to drop out of the race to avoid indictment. Not sure what to make of all this...

Now this makes me supremely curious as to who his sources are. I can tell by the detailed analysis of the article, especially from a guy who lacks credentials for such detail, he is getting his information from some guardian angel insider... Honestly, that article scares me for some reason.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Through my corporate tech friends I hear nothing but wtf regarding the .pst

It has all their haunches up as a definite flag for an internal conspiracy.

B

here's a searing video report on the Huff article...

Still Report #905 - Clinton Will Be Indicted on Racketeering?

Published on May 30, 2016

According to the Huffington Post, Hillary Clinton will be indicted on federal racketeering charges.
According to Huff Post contributor Frank Huguenard, James Comey will present evidence to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that the Clinton Foundation is:
“… an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.”
As many inside the beltway have suspected, as the FBI dug into Clinton’s illicit home server and the subsequent emails on it, the investigation has expanded far beyond violations of State Department regulations and now includes possible espionage, perjury and influence peddling.
When the FBI investigation began, Clinton instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails, and the backups as well at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc.
However, also as suspected, the FBI has subsequently been able to recover most, if not all, of these emails, and will also charge her with obstruction for attempting to cover up illegal activities.
As far as her handling of classified material goes, it is a Federal Class A Felony to negligently handle classified information. In addition, Clinton lied to a Federal Judge that she had handed over all her emails to the State Department, which she clearly did not.
I’m still reporting from Washington. Good day.

Original author is now claiming conspiracy in Huffington Post gagging him.

www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/30/exclusive-huffington-post-writer-editors-deleted-my-article-on-hillarys-imminent-indictment-disabled-me-fr om-writing/


www.breitbart.com... d-me-from-writing/

a reply to: Bspiracy

Yep, a .pst file will tell you a lot about a person's and server's use.

What if there were email accounts only he used?

But, it's absence will tell you a lot too.

Remember, the FBI has access to NSA resources.

They've got it, and everything else the Clintons et al were up to. Their little private cabal might be sunk soon.

Akin to pissing in the ocean.




Still...every little bit helps.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

I just messaged him and invited him to the thread to comment.

Will update with any response.

originally posted by: Bspiracy
Edited to add that if anyine thinks Hillary's friend Loretta Lynch will indict without being forced to then you dont know politics. . hopefully the FBI has a 1000% slam dunk case that forces her hand.

It will never happen. The US will not prosecute a former member of a high level government position. There is a massive slippery slope involved in doing so. Hillary will not see jail for the same reasons W, Cheney, and Rove won't.