Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
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.

This is a conspiracy site.
I don't see members saying that the story in the OP is verified as true.
They find it interesting.
One reason they find it interesting is the underlying facts that make it completely possible.
Thanks to the actions of Hillary Clinton.

Exactly! The amount of rank speculation on HuffPost, ESPECIALLY, regarding Clinton being indicted is numerous. They don't pull these articles... The difference being the other articles were simply a contributor's opinion whereas the one by Frank had a lot of extra details which seem to come from inside sources. He got way too close to the truth is why they won't keep it published.

If it was the usual BS it would still be up there. But I'm guessing the people in charge at HuffPo were threatened over it because it is for real.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

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.

That's a good, and valid point. They either didn't ask because A) they know it's complete unverifiable BS or B) they're trying to hide something.

Regardless, has the author publicly provided a source or evidence to anyone yet?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah, I know right?

Whoever would have thought that having a presidential candidate plausibly be thought to have committed RICO violations be thought of as run of the mill news?

And this is the person some want as POTUS.

It is undeniable that the Foundation benefited financially in ways that carry the stench of corruption.

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

On that note....here's an interesting story the HuffPo picked up from- and reposted for the Washington Post with unnamed sources:
www.huffingtonpost.com... (Live Link will not post)

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

All the sources from the story remain unnamed. Yet, the HuffPo's is still publishing this report.

Some information is meant to be public and some is meant to be pulled for dramatic effect or buried as quietly as possible.

Our press is driven to report based on complicity. That's really the only point that matters to me.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
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.

This is a conspiracy site.
I don't see members saying that the story in the OP is verified as true.
They find it interesting.
One reason they find it interesting is the underlying facts that make it completely possible.
Thanks to the actions of Hillary Clinton.

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true.

Some of us simply want to see the supposed evidence, so we can form an accurate opinion, instead of taking some random, incredible guy's word for something we want and hope to be true.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And most of the people who have unnamed or anonymous sources have some semblance of credibility.

This guy, it seems, doesn't.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: IAMTAT

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.

That's a good, and valid point. They either didn't ask because A) they know it's complete unverifiable BS or B) they're trying to hide something.

Regardless, has the author publicly provided a source or evidence to anyone yet?

Re: A): How could they possibly know it's "completely unverifiable"?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And most of the people who have unnamed or anonymous sources have some semblance of credibility.

This guy, it seems, doesn't.

Meh. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. As a former blogger who uncovered information of great public interest that the MAJOR media failed to report, I find citizen journalists more credible than professional/major media-controlled journalists.

The major media has no credibility, IMO. I will not be persuaded to take HuffPo's side in this without some very good explanation from them.

a reply to: Liquesence

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true. 

Entertaining an idea and trying to find more information does not constitute belief. But then, you know that.

Some of us simply want to see the supposed evidence, so we can form an accurate opinion, instead of taking some random, incredible guy's word for something we want and hope to be true.

Which member can you point out that is stopping you?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Congress will appoint a special prosecutor.

Simple as a dimple.

Yes or a state AG could take it up.

Hell, multi states could divy up the charges, lol.

Threaten to keep her in court for 1000 years.

a reply to: Liquesence

Comey is giving his people lie detector tests to prevent leaks... If the author of the article had a source inside the FBI or DOJ and named them they would instantly lose their job and face other consequences. Even if he says he got it from someone in the FBI they could probably still figure out who that person is pretty easily.

Shouldn't it be enough that he says he "has sources and corroboration" since that seems to be the same criteria (simply stating such) that most other articles people consider legit do?

I don't know whether the claim is true or not. And NO SOURCE is going to go public with this information until an indictment is read so all of your arguments are pointless.

However, there have been many people who have broken a story before the mainstream press who were looked at no different than this guy (Drudge, D'Souza, etc) until their reports were eventually verified.

So regardless of what you believe right now, you'll all have to wait until the FBI makes their report and/or recommendation.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The scenario he poses is quite plausible however.

Actually, I believe that too. This is the part they should be focusing on, the connections between the SD and the Clinton Foundation. I've said it a couple times in other threads, but I don't think the issues lie in the email/server aspect itself.

That being said, we still need proof if we are going to talk in absolutes. Speculation is one thing, but absolutes require evidence.

originally posted by: Liquesence

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true.

And a year ago most people said Hillary wasn't lying.

Since then, Hillary's lies have been "sourced" and proven.

When I see it Ill brleive it.8

Even the National Enquirer gets a scoop right once in a while.

Nothing is impossible.


I will wait for the FBI's official press conference.

originally posted by: RickinVa

Even the National Enquirer gets a scoop right once in a while.

Nothing is impossible.


I will wait for the FBI's official press conference.

We agree for once, Rick.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Liquesence

Just because one wants (or believes) something to be true, doesn't mean it is true.

And a year ago most people said Hillary wasn't lying.

Since then, Hillary's lies have been "sourced" and proven.

I never said she wasn't.

The point is proof of this author's claim of having some inside information relating to her imminent indictment on racketeering.

Did she get indicted yet, not going to be able to hold my breath any longer.