It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

page: 1
92
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+31 more 
posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
***PLEASE READ ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE RESPONDING***

According to a recently DELETED Huffington Post article which can still be accessed via archive, Hillary is in hot water.

Source. archive.is...

Pic of the article.



This is either an elaborate hoax or its real. I am leaning towards real considering this recent article by the Washington Examiner.

Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit


Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court. The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.


I will keep digging to see if there is any there-there or what "is" actually means.
edit on 29-5-2016 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



+14 more 
posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Happy Memorial Day Hillary !!!

This will have the Hillary Campaign going nuts all weekend.




posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
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.



edit on 29-5-2016 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
it's fake....this article is from may of 2015... and the Washington examiner is just above the national enquirer in truth telling in regard to anything left or liberal



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
it's fake....this article is from may of 2015... and the Washington examiner is just above the national enquirer in truth telling in regard to anything left or liberal


The Examiner article is, that is because that is when that particular lawsuit was filed. I guess you don't understand how slow or fast these types of cases unfold.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Thanks for the update.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Here is some more meat, looks like Huff Post it thumping the drums against Hillary.

State Department Report Justifies Indictments for Hillary Clinton. Democrats Need Bernie Sanders


As stated in the report, State Department protocol and guidelines correlate to existing laws regarding record keeping and the handling of classified data. Now that Clinton can’t simply claim “convenience,” there’s the obvious intent to hide information.


She is hiding information regarding how, when, and where money for the Clinton Foundation was appropriated. I think this is why there are rumors of a RICO case.


+2 more 
posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
it's fake....this article is from may of 2015... and the Washington examiner is jus.......


If you read the link you would have seen it's current.

Interesting article. Its well written, linked, and doesnt read like a fake.
Curious to why it went up then down..

The article is too complex and fact driven for a simple hoax

B



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy


Interesting article. Its well written, linked, and doesnt read like a fake. Curious to why it went up then down..

Oh, I think we know why, or at least we can guess.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy

It was real.

Here is the origional now deleted link.

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-to-be-indicted-on-federal-racketeering_us_574af94be4b0009f3d848d20"

Here is some Twitter activity before it was deleted.



It is hitting the fan folks!


+10 more 
posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

If I had a soul I would sell it to Satan right now to make this true.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: jimmyx
it's fake....this article is from may of 2015... and the Washington examiner is just above the national enquirer in truth telling in regard to anything left or liberal


The Examiner article is, that is because that is when that particular lawsuit was filed. I guess you don't understand how slow or fast these types of cases unfold.


the title is a lie.....if she was going to indicted for racketeering, it would have been all over the news by now, guaranteed.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
If this is about foreign donations to foundations then it's pretty shaky grounds, Generally speaking that's allowable anyway, but even so health and medical donations were the only ones to be given while Hilary was in office, perhaps even more stringent, and it appears that is how it was operated. Hilary would have had to steal the money back for any political campaign
edit on 29-5-2016 by smurfy because: Text.


+9 more 
posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Oh...that Right Wing Huffington Post...oh, wait...


+9 more 
posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: jimmyx
it's fake....this article is from may of 2015... and the Washington examiner is just above the national enquirer in truth telling in regard to anything left or liberal


The Examiner article is, that is because that is when that particular lawsuit was filed. I guess you don't understand how slow or fast these types of cases unfold.


the title is a lie.....if she was going to indicted for racketeering, it would have been all over the news by now, guaranteed.


Its everywhere right now. Go to Twitter and search for "hillary clinton to be indicted" and look at all the feed activity and various articles. There is a full blown cover-up in progress right now but its too late.
edit on 29-5-2016 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
She's

a. Had a lawsuit filed against her for money laundering through the Clinton Foundation
b. Is being indicted for the above
c. Has a lawsuit filed against her for racketeering because of her emails
d. Is being indicted for racketeering because of her emails

It depends on which right-wing propagandized rag of a site you choose.

Then the likely truth,

e. none of the above



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
that's a 5/29/15 article/event from what I can tell



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
and yet, going to the huffington post website right now, not a peep...it must be hidden



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
and yet, going to the huffington post website right now, not a peep...it must be hidden


Hidden? Or a hoax and it was never there to start with?



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
that's a 5/29/15 article/event from what I can tell


The Huff Post article is from today. The other article I posted was in regards to a now dismissed lawsuit which by the way, was not dismissed because the judge didn't find wrongdoing. It was dismissed because the complaintant was too far removed from the Clintons to prove damages.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join