Author Topic: FBI: Hillary Clinton to face Criminal Indictment for Email Abuse 'Very Soon'  (Read 5854 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Repubs should be scared of this.  Imagine the collective nut the bernie supporters will blow, should hilary be indicted.  You guys think they're enthusiastic now?   Trump polling way better against hilary.  But they'll celebrate anyway, the immature, short-term thinking they enjoy.



A journalist employed by liberal Huffington Post reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) will recommend that the Department of Justice file a Federal criminal complaint, indicting U.S. Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Frank Hugenard is a political scientist, public speaker and freelance contributor to the Huff Po. He had his story removed by HuffPo editors and his account disabled without explanation. His article bore the title: ""Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges" It quickly went viral before being removed.

FBI Director James Comey will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General and head of the U.S. Department of Justice, that includes a compelling argument 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.

http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/06/01/news/fbi-hillary-clinton-to-face-criminal-indictment-for-email-abuse-very-soon/1334.html

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
LOL!



Poll: 71 percent of Dems think Clinton should keep running even if indicted

A strong majority of Democratic voters think Hillary Clinton should keep running for president even if she is charged with a felony in connection with her private email use while secretary of state, according to a new poll.

The report found repeated warnings about cybersecurity were ignored and staffers who expressed concerns were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

Yet, this seems not to be a big issue among Democrats. The Rasmussen poll released Tuesday found 71 percent of Democratic voters believe she should keep running even if indicted, a view shared by only 30 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of unaffiliated voters. Overall, 50 percent of those polled said she should keep running.

FOX NEWS

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Libertarian VP candidate doesn't think she'll be indicted

Granted he was only the head of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department under Reagan so not quite the authority of a freelance HuffPo contributor

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/bill-weld-im-not-buying-that-clinton-will-be-indicted-not-enough-evidence/


Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
They mean RICO shit for the Clinton Foundation (or whatever it's called), right?

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Wow, what a blessing it would be to see her sidetracked from the evil plan.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
They mean RICO shit for the Clinton Foundation (or whatever it's called), right?

yeah, the article is about the Clinton Foundation but the title of the thread references her emails




Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
yeah, the article is about the Clinton Foundation but the title of the thread references her emails

good job 240



That is the common title, though.  But will look into it further and report back.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
That is the common title, though.  But will look into it further and report back.

yeah, you're right.

Just looked at the link

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
yeah, you're right.

Just looked at the link

I don't know how valid anything is, but IMO a quick look at situation says this: Hillary is said to have deleted 10s of 1000s of emails upon the start of the server investigation, and information recovered from those deleted messages show (as the story goes) a scam involving donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
IMO maybe something along the lines of money-laundering.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Also influence-peddling possibilities, etc.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
I don't know how valid anything is, but IMO a quick look at situation says this: Hillary is said to have deleted 10s of 1000s of emails upon the start of the server investigation, and information recovered from those deleted messages show (as the story goes) a scam involving donations to the Clinton Foundation.

that sounds bad
 
Is anyone other than a freelance poster to HuffPo reporting this?

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
that sounds bad
 
Is anyone other than a freelance poster to HuffPo reporting this?

Still looking at whole thing, but it doesn't look strong as far as something to take to bank.  But I wouldn't necessarily expect it to, either.

And Hillary is much smarter and slippery than most people could ever imagine, so if I were forced to bet on it right this moment, I'd go no (to her being in serious trouble, no matter what happens).

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
And if I didn't know what honest and upstanding people we have working for our government, I'd be concerned they may parade around a bunch of RICO nonsense in order to divide us even more, and make the anti-Hillary people blow their stacks in anger that she still receives support despite being in "serious trouble!!!" which is all a bunch of shit to begin with.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Strange how some of the information on it will sort of blend the two things together, without any distinction.  May God help us with our media, because it could be done with a purpose.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
This is one of those "reports about a story" in which something is said without needing to say they said it (lol)

Really silly shit, that we must put up with this nonsense.

But here is the deleted article, as archived:

----

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument 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.

Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillary’s home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling.

Here’s what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities.

A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and there’s no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public.

Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it’s the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons’ downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan.

It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. In spite of her repeated statements to the effect that everything that she did with her home brewed email server as Secretary of State was above-board and approved by the State Department, the Inspector General Report vehemently refutes this claim. Hillary refused to be interview by the Inspector General’s office in their investigation, claiming that her upcoming FBI interview took precedent but it seems more likely that Hillary is more concerned about committing perjury or admitting to anything that can be used against her in a court of law.

Some of the documents were so highly classified the the investigators on the case weren’t even able to examine the material themselves until they got their own clearances raised to the highest levels.

While there is an excellent [case] to be made the Hillary committed treasonous actions, the strongest case the FBI has is charging both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation of Racketeering. There’s no wonder why it’s taken this long for the FBI to bring forward a recommendation. The rabbit hole is so deep on this one that it has taking dozens of investigators to determine the full extent of the crimes that have been committed. Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBI’s investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Here's some related stuff from about a year ago, from Bloomberg. (Lol, that's enough to suspect the whole thing is a game, right there.)

Some of this is now disputed, including what's wrapped-up in the last paragraph.

----
Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP.  “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

“We’re not trying to hide anything.”
—Frank Giustra


The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”
It hasn’t.

Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.
 
On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”
 
Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."

CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."

While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.
 
However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.

With millions of dollars and 1,100 donors shrouded in mystery, CGEP has caught the attention of journalist and authors, including Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, details Giustra’s financial relationship with Bill Clinton and posits nefarious intentions. The fact that the Clinton Foundation promised something that Giustra feels he can’t supply—the identity of his donors—has put him in an even worse spot.

Giustra is fed up, and he’s vowing to do something to ease his disclosure constraints and clear his name. “There is a way around it—but you need each individual donor’s written permission to allow us to disclose their names,” he says. “We’re going through a process now where we’re trying to get the permission.” He adds, “We’re not going to go to 1,100 people. But we’re certainly going to go to the big ones—a couple hundred grand and up—and just see what they say. Now, they can say no. But we’re going to try.”

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
I really believe thats the main reason Bernie hasn't quit yet...he's waiting to see if she gets indicted and then if she does he can step in and the Democratic establishment can turn to him..Bernie just doesn't want to say that

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
I really believe thats the main reason Bernie hasn't quit yet...he's waiting to see if she gets indicted and then if she does he can step in and the Democratic establishment can turn to him..Bernie just doesn't want to say that

IMO her supporters and DNC would dismiss it as "Republican Tricks" or whatever and all would continue as normal with her as the leader.  Her supporters are convinced everyone is against her, anyway, including the media (big lol) and that she's had to fight like a champ to get anywhere.  So it fits in perfectly with that.

Unless something very bad is revealed with her prints all over it (which is unlikely, since she is careful) it will be a big drama show with nothing but perhaps a few unheard-of people sacrificed.

But we can always hope.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
I really believe thats the main reason Bernie hasn't quit yet...he's waiting to see if she gets indicted and then if she does he can step in and the Democratic establishment can turn to him..Bernie just doesn't want to say that

agreed.

the super delegates know bernie is way more popular and will do better against trump.   they have to all jump at once.   an indictment gives them that cover.

msnbc flirted with it yesterday "It'd take something OUTSIDE OF POLITICS to get the supers to leave hilary".

Bernie just cannot say it out loud ;)   debbie wasserman shultz is standing in the way of the supers bailing.

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
agreed.

the super delegates know bernie is way more popular and will do better against trump.   they have to all jump at once.   an indictment gives them that cover.

msnbc flirted with it yesterday "It'd take something OUTSIDE OF POLITICS to get the supers to leave hilary".

Bernie just cannot say it out loud ;)   debbie wasserman shultz is standing in the way of the supers bailing.

Her supporters continue to use "reasoning" to say she's "the better choice" to beat Trump, but the numbers don't back that up.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39441
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Hillary getting indicted would be awesome and even though I think Bernie is batshit insane socialist and would easily beat Trump in an election, it might just be worth it to see her in leg irons.  

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
Bernie would force Trump to step-up the game in ways Hillary simply couldn't.  She doesn't have the ground to stand on, to the point you'd think Republicans (if they were honest with themselves) would back her over Trump, seeing how she's actually a neo-con masquerading as something else.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Her supporters continue to use "reasoning" to say she's "the better choice" to beat Trump, but the numbers don't back that up.

yeah, they're completely wrong.  Her supporters tolerate and fear her.  They know the clintons never foget, and hilary will screw them down the line. She just seems inevitable because she had a nice 500 delegate lead before iowa. 

Trump does NOT want to debate bernie because bernie is pretty tough and very good spontaneously.   Bernie MIGHT blurt you "you're an immature ass, you know that"?  Or "You don't know what you're talking about donald".    He looks like he's holding back talking shit all the time - He'll be able to pull off dignity + tough at the same time.  CLinton can do dignity, trump can do tough.  Neither can do both.  Bernie can (and I don't even like his politics, they'll bankrupt us lol)

Las Vegas

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • ! Repent or Perish !
yeah, they're completely wrong.  Her supporters tolerate and fear her.  They know the clintons never foget, and hilary will screw them down the line. She just seems inevitable because she had a nice 500 delegate lead before iowa. 

Trump does NOT want to debate bernie because bernie is pretty tough and very good spontaneously.   Bernie MIGHT blurt you "you're an immature ass, you know that"?  Or "You don't know what you're talking about donald".    He looks like he's holding back talking shit all the time - He'll be able to pull off dignity + tough at the same time.  CLinton can do dignity, trump can do tough.  Neither can do both.  Bernie can (and I don't even like his politics, they'll bankrupt us lol)

Yeah, sometimes he looks ready to scream "FUCK you!!!", lol.  Hahah

He's done a great job, though.  Maybe the biggest thing holding him back with "democrats" is that he's an old white man and too many people are so stupid as to exclude him for that.  He's fully legit IMO.