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: 10
92
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What evidence did the author share with the OP?


I guess you didn't read the thread yet.


Not all of it, no. Can you point me in the right direction to find this shared evidence?




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Liquesence

nope, he crimes have been identified and they are in back channel talks on how its going to happen.


That might very well be true.

However, THIS "article" did not provide any proof or evidence: it's pure speculation (based on (publicly) available information).

Hence, why it was likely taken down.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
People create BS stories online all the time without consequence.

After looking at this issue and doing some digging, I am willing to say this guy is just a disgruntled Bernie supporter that created a hit/hate piece about Hillary and the investigation and posted in on HuffPo...when it belonged on a conspiracy site or something similar instead.


Just because someone doesn't get sued for writing something false doesn't mean they can't be. It really comes down to the amount of damages they can get and the persons ability to pay.

The damages in this case are probably minimal so the only ruling would be to take the story down and maybe publish a retraction that no one will read.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Who is forcing you to believe anything?

Do you feel threatened by this story?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You're welcome to attempt to contact him directly. The OP of this thread has done so, I have as well to invite him here.

He says HuffPo never contacted him nor asked him for sources, they just pulled the post unilaterally.

Why haven't the mods here moved it to HOAX or LOL?

Maybe you should report the thread in case they haven't seen it.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
A modicum of research regarding "Frank Huguenard" ...

He is an "ultimate Frisbee" aficionado who is not well thought of by others active in the sport.

On Basketball, Ultimate, And Philosophy: An Interview With ‘Crazy’ Frank Huguenard

He has produced (and wrote, and directed, and starred in) some documentaries about "the connection between science and spirituality."

IMDB - Frank Huguenard

And here's a list of other articles recently written by Mr. Frank Huguenard on Huffington Post:



The Bernie Way
Meditators for Bernie
Why Bernie Is Going to Win
Understanding Bernie or Bust
The Right Argument For Bernie
Why Bernie’s Platform Stands Apart
Why America Urgently Needs Sanders
Why Our $3T Healthcare System is Broken
The Evolution of The Human Race is at Stake
Has Hillary Learned Nothing From Republicans?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Who is forcing you to believe anything?

Do you feel threatened by this story?



No. I didn't know this was a matter of faith. Should this be in the religious forums?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical



You're welcome to attempt to contact him directly. The OP of this thread has done so, I have as well to invite him here.


Congrats. I commend you for the effort.

But what does that have to do with my request? That in and of itself is not evidence.



Why haven't the mods here moved it to HOAX or LOL?

Maybe you should report the thread in case they haven't seen it.


Irrelevant and absurd. I want to know if you guys have evidence to support your believing him. Are there facts we can verify here, or is this an exercise in confirmation bias?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He's also a Renaissance Man.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Gryphon66

He's also a Renaissance Man.


Should there be a ™ after that?




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

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.


edit on 30-5-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I don't necessarily believe nor disbelieve him. The scenario he poses is quite plausible however.

Since you can't be arsed the read the thread, I will provide you my thoughts upon revelation that this could be hearsay and speculation:


originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
A RICO indictment could certainly be one of the recommendations the FBI makes after having conducted a thorough and intensive criminal investigation into the inner workings of the State Department and how it intersected with the Clinton Foundation, other than having all emails go through the same non-secure, internet-connected, unapproved, non-disclosed, privately-owned server.

The Foundation received millions from countries in which the State Department had recently been active and many of Hillary's top people were being paid by both the State Department & the Clinton Foundation at the same time creating, not only, the appearance, but the actuality, of impropriety. This is the very definition of conflict of interest.


In the mean time we can discuss the possibilities.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

He says HuffPo never contacted him nor asked him for sources, they just pulled the post unilaterally.


They have every right to pull anything a user posts that is unverified until they can get verification or evidence for the claim(s).



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
It's ironic because HuffPost puts out thousands of stories that have "questionable" sources don't they.

Now all of a sudden they are saints.




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

You are correct, as do the site moderators here.

Here when you have a thread removed you are sent a message indicating that you violated T&C and then generally provided with a link to give further detail.

According to the authors statements, he didn't even get that much.

Not being a member of the HufffPo blogosphere I would not be familiar with how they treat suspect content, all I have to go by is my experience here.

Hell, even Facebook will send you a nastygram if they remove one of your posts for whatever reason.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
This place has gotten to its lowest point ever in just the last few days. I've never seen it this bad here. I want Hillary to go down too, but come on. This is borderline retarded.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

He says HuffPo never contacted him nor asked him for sources, they just pulled the post unilaterally.


They have every right to pull anything a user posts that is unverified until they can get verification or evidence for the claim(s).



It's odd, however, that HuffPost didn't contact HIM to ask about his sources and/or evidence...especially if they had an actual desire to validate his claims.
Certainly, they could have offered him a promise of confidentiality.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
I don't necessarily believe nor disbelieve him. The scenario he poses is quite plausible however.


Ha! And isn't that the really glaring awkwardness in all this? It is plausible that a frontrunner candidate for President of the United States might soon be indicted on RICO charges.

We should all be outraged at the DNC for offering us such a candidate. The party is pathetic to claim the moral & ethical higher ground, all the time.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What happens on ATS or Facebook is irrelevant.

So, he's not been contacted by HP regarding a source. OK (even though it's his obligation to provide one), OK.

Bottom line: Has he provided a source to anyone?




top topics



 
92
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join