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: 17
92
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: BIGPoJo

And

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yep, I'm well aware if both, just thought that poster had something else in mind.


If you or I had sent that email we would already be in prison, that I can guarantee.




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: CIAGypsy

I think the FBI has taken as long as it has because they have a preponderance of evidence and multiple charges to recommend Clinton for indictment.

I also think that if the DOJ doesn't indict that a lot of career FBI and intel folks will resign and leak everything they found on Clinton. The political fallout would destroy public trust in the DOJ, and practically guarantee a Trump presidency.

I think some people are going to prison overy this, likely some of Clintons top cronies (Abedin, Mills) because someone had to have moved TS info from JWICS to Niprnet to send to Clintons email.

As for Clinton, I think as others have said that Pagliano and Guccifer will be the bane of her existence. Even if she's indicted and convicted she would likely live out her days under house arrest in one of her plush mansions...



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
You would think with all the razz-matazz about this article, the Justice Department would make a statement?

Silence is Golden comes to mind.



The DOJ probably doesn't read conspiracy theories or website that cater to fringe ideas so they probably have not seen anything on this. Funny how it's still not on msm anywhere including Fox who you would think would air a special on the whole thing with DeLay and Gowdy as guests.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Ha ha ha you think that says something. How cute. How wishful. How funny.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   


UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05787519 Date: 01/07/2016


This is all that is needed to confirm and verify.
Its the real deal, there is no doubt to authenticity.

Its been 12 hours and not a peep out of anyone.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: flatbush71

Looks guilty to me



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Not sure if its been posted. Biggest mystery is that Trump loving Drudge hasn't picked up on this.

EXCLUSIVE — Huffington Post Writer: Editors Deleted My Article on Hillary’s Imminent Indictment, Disabled Me from Writing





A writer for The Huffington Post is still waiting for an explanation as to why editors deleted his piece reporting that the FBI will pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton.

Huffington Post freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, wrote a report for the liberal site Sunday entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges.” But the piece was not up for long before the Huffington Post pulled it down and replaced it with a “404” Error screen.

“Huffpo has yet to respond to my request for an explanation,” Huguenard tweeted at this Breitbart News reporter Monday morning. “I’ve got my sources, they never asked.”


Huguenard later told Breitbart News, “I want to do another story but my HuffPo account has been temporarily disabled. Not sure what’s happening with them.”


The Huffington Post media team did not return a request for comment.

edit on 46630America/ChicagoWed, 01 Jun 2016 09:46:06 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

She is not facing racketeering charges. Give me a freakin break. Try watching a real news station once in a while.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's been three days and this unproven junk is on the home page as a headline.
This place has really gone down in quality lately. There used to be standards that had to be met. I saw a long time member, a really well liked member banned for posting a story that was not true.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BIGPoJo

She is not facing racketeering charges. Give me a freakin break. Try watching a real news station once in a while.


"Try watching a real news station once in a while."

Why don't you try looking at these 3 Government sites instead of a "real news station" or a pro Hillary website?

1. foia.state.gov...

2. www.whitehouse.gov...

3. www.archives.gov...


So much better without any pro or anti Hillary spin. Very easy to prove what laws Hillary has broken concerning mishandling of classified information.

edit on R442016-06-01T10:44:58-05:00k446Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Add one more to that list....

Over classification and classification run amok excuse? Not quite so fast:

4. www.dodig.mil...


We also concluded that some policies, procedures, rules, regulations or management practices may be contributing to persistent misclassification of material. While we did find some instances of over- classification, we do not believe that those instances concealed violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevented embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; restrained competition; or prevented or delayed the release of information not requir ing protecti on in the interest of national security.




if the OCA determines that information requires protection beyond 10 years of the original classification, the OCA may assign a date or event up to, but not exceeding, 25 years from the date of the original decision;

edit on R332016-06-01T11:33:04-05:00k336Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: flatbush71

and

a reply to: Martin75


Its been 12 hours and not a peep out of anyone.


Ok, yes this particular email has been discussed many times in many of the threads regarding this topic.

Yes, I agree that if anyone other than Hillary had sent the referenced email, that person would sitting in a jail cell awaiting the outcome of the investigation.

Not running for president.

And while it is a very important aspect to the overall case, it does not go to the topic of this particular thread; the possibility of Hillary and company facing racketeering charges.

 


a reply to: Sillyolme

As Rick mentioned above, there is no need for news stories as anyone can look at the original, primary documents & statutes directly and verify for themselves what the contents are of each item respectively. There is no need for interpretation when one does this.

However, if the editorial staff at HuffPo are so absolutely certain about the falsity of their claim, why are none of them stepping forward to take ownership of pulling the post?

I refer you to the following:


Huffington Post Politics senior editor Sam Stein told Breitbart News that he doesn’t know why the piece was pulled.

“Sorry. I don’t know. I’d direct your question to a blog editor,” Stein said.

Pressed to provide contact information for the blog editor in question, Stein did not respond further.

...

The Huffington Post’s media team and also HuffPo senior politics editor Sam Stein did not return requests for comment as of press time.


Breitbart

Can you find something that shows specifically why HuffPo pulled the article other than the disclaimer on their page of


This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.


Any direct quote from a named HuffPo editor?

I've been looking and I cannot find anything at all.

I am not saying the story is true, but the insistence on it's not being true does not, so far, have any more merit than it being true.
edit on 1-6-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: typos



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa


Very easy to prove what laws Hillary has broken concerning mishandling of classified information.


If that were true, you would have done so by now with the ?thousand? pages and Ops you have posted here on ATS for this singular topic.

The irony of course is that her political opponent, Donald Trump, is the only one that is actually going to trial for Fraud charges.

Alas...the real world vs. "hope".



“I am very pleased the judge has indicated her intention to move as expeditiously as possible to trial, as thousands of Mr. Trump’s alleged victims have been waiting years for relief from his fraud.

We believe that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sexton will be essential witnesses at trial. As we will prove in court, Donald Trump and his sham for-profit college defrauded thousands of students out of millions of dollars.”

www.ag.ny.gov...


edit on 1-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Maybe HuffPo pulled it because the story is speculation and not backed up by any verifiable information.

- no statements by anyone in a position of authority
- no documents

There's zero proof other than a "my friend told me so!" ...

Yeah, I'd pull that from my NEWS website too, even if it was from a contributing blogger.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: flatbush71

I am not saying the story is true, but the insistence on it's not being true does not, so far, have any more merit than it being true.


That wonderful logic can apply to any unsubstantiated story...How about "Donald Trump eats Kittens?"...I am not saying the story is true, but the insistence on it's not being true does not, so far, have any more merit than it being true.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
As much as I'd love this to be true, I thought it was common knowledge that nothing coming from HuffPo is credible.

On that note, this is likely one of those pre-written articles that media producers have ready in case a story hits the news. Especially if it's a large story, being the first to have it out can generate quite a bit of extra clicks and income. Many of these companies have pre-written articles for large events that may come in the future. This one likely got posted by accident and that is why it was deleted (since it doesn't make sense to post that story when she hasn't been indicted..)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: interupt42

Maybe HuffPo pulled it because the story is speculation and not backed up by any verifiable information.

- no statements by anyone in a position of authority
- no documents

There's zero proof other than a "my friend told me so!" ...

Yeah, I'd pull that from my NEWS website too, even if it was from a contributing blogger.


On "contributing blogger"...he is an avid Bernie Supporter and this is his first article for HuffPost's "open blogger stream" (or any article anyplace else as best I can tell) and his friends refer to him as "Crazy Frank"? His other occupations include Ultimate Frisbee, a questionable charity encouraging tsunami victims to meditate and claiming he invented things that he did not invent.

skydmagazine.com...
cannonfire.blogspot.com...

But sure...he says something the far right likes and all of a sudden he is Walter Cronkite.
edit on 1-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyrrho
As much as I'd love this to be true, I thought it was common knowledge that nothing coming from HuffPo is credible.

On that note, this is likely one of those pre-written articles that media producers have ready in case a story hits the news.


No...HuffPo has a platform where anyone can register as a blogger and post content...up until they post utter trash.

That is why the original article includes this caveat ...as does every article on the blogger stream..

"This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email."



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Here's the thing, in the email that has been referenced here in this post Hillary is instructing someone to remove classification headers from a secure document and then fax that document over an unsecure line.

Now, it does not matter if the document contains a recipe for apple pie that can be found on a million websites nor does it matter if the action was carried out or not. Here we have the Secretary of State telling one of their underlings to violate a number of statutes dealing with classified information, merely for the sake of convenience.

How is that not an issue?

As others have mentioned, if anyone else had done the above, they would be incarcerated awaiting the outcome of the investigation and then a trial would take place.

Why is it that Hillary is the exception?

Laws don't apply to her?

Help me out here.

 


a reply to: Indigo5

I will give you that, but this isn't a story about Trump eating kittens.

Is it entirely implausible that RICO violations are some of what is coming Hillary's way?

And I'll ask you the same question I've asked the thread in general and another poster in particular:


Huffington Post Politics senior editor Sam Stein told Breitbart News that he doesn’t know why the piece was pulled.

“Sorry. I don’t know. I’d direct your question to a blog editor,” Stein said.

Pressed to provide contact information for the blog editor in question, Stein did not respond further.

...

The Huffington Post’s media team and also HuffPo senior politics editor Sam Stein did not return requests for comment as of press time.


Breitbart

Can you find something that shows specifically why HuffPo pulled the article other than the disclaimer on their page of


This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.


Have you found anywhere where a specific named person from the Huffington Post will answer as to why they removed the post without contacting the author? I really would like to see such if it exists.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa


Very easy to prove what laws Hillary has broken concerning mishandling of classified information.


If that were true, you would have done so by now with the ?thousand? pages and Ops you have posted here on ATS for this singular topic.

The irony of course is that her political opponent, Donald Trump, is the only one that is actually going to trial for Fraud charges.

Alas...the real world vs. "hope".



“I am very pleased the judge has indicated her intention to move as expeditiously as possible to trial, as thousands of Mr. Trump’s alleged victims have been waiting years for relief from his fraud.

We believe that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sexton will be essential witnesses at trial. As we will prove in court, Donald Trump and his sham for-profit college defrauded thousands of students out of millions of dollars.”

www.ag.ny.gov...



"If that were true, you would have done so by now with the ?thousand? pages and Ops you have posted here on ATS for this singular topic."

Here ya go...yet again my friend:


4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.


Looks pretty clear what laws have been broken.... just read through the list and find the ones that apply.

You are welcome.
edit on R412016-06-01T11:41:43-05:00k416Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
92
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join