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: 20
92
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


An excellent summary about retroactive classification:

scholarship.law.upenn.edu...


It is a description of retroactive classification, a little-known provision of U.S. national security law that allows the government to declassify a document, release it to the public, and then declare it classified later on. Retroactive classification means the government could hand you a document today and prosecute you tomorrow for not giving it back. Retroactive classification can even reach documents that are available in public libraries, on the Internet, or elsewhere in the public domain.




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
A couple of points that come to mind.
It is true there is a growing discussion spreading through the MSM about the possibility of her not being the nominee...but...

1.) If, as the author says, she plans on leaving the race this week...WHY did she just commit to millions of dollars of new campaign ad spending in California?

2.) An announcement should be coming very soon about Bill getting a routine checkup and having discovered he's seriously or terminally ill.--He IS obviously ill and has been for sometime, however, it has yet to be revealed.

It should happen soon to either:

A. Give Hillary an excuse to drop out and be given respectful distance from the press and the FBI...while she spends quality
time with her ailing husband...or...

B. Gain a sympathy vote and give her the election...while Bill hangs on through the inauguration...and makes an amazing recovery.
edit on 1-6-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
A couple of points that come to mind.
It is true there is a growing discussion spreading through the MSM about the possibility of her not being the nominee...but...

1.) If, as the author says, she plans on leaving the race this week...WHY did she just commit to millions of dollars of new campaign ad spending in California?

2.) An announcement should be coming very soon about Bill getting a routine checkup and having discovered he's terminally ill.--He IS obviously ill and has been for sometime, however, it has yet to be revealed.

It should happen soon to either:

A. Give Hillary an excuse to drop out and be given respectful distance from the press and the FBI...while she spends quality
time with her ailing husband...or...

B. Gain a sympathy vote and give her the election...while Bill hangs on through the inauguration...and makes an amazing recovery.


I don't have cable, so if you have any links to the MSM discussion, I would love to read them.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye
HERE'S a BIG one...off the top:
www.wsj.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: MotherMayEye


An excellent summary about retroactive classification:

scholarship.law.upenn.edu...


It is a description of retroactive classification, a little-known provision of U.S. national security law that allows the government to declassify a document, release it to the public, and then declare it classified later on. Retroactive classification means the government could hand you a document today and prosecute you tomorrow for not giving it back. Retroactive classification can even reach documents that are available in public libraries, on the Internet, or elsewhere in the public domain.




Yes, I totally appreciate this summary. I think it was Introvert who asked in another thread about the application of the retroactive classification argument in court. From what I read, the fact that Hillary was the OCA did not absolve her from knowing the information sent on her server was classified -- doesn't matter if she labeled it or not.

Contrast that to someone who was given retroactively classified info in a FOIA. They would not be permitted to share the info upon discovering the information was classified. But they would not be held accountable if they had previously disclosed it, because they were not the OCA and it was not their duty to know the information was classified per an EO.

This is the best I could draw from what has been heard in Court, to date.

I feel like this is gist of the point I quoted, from Indigo. Could be misunderstanding though...



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is a very interesting point straight from the SD's classification guidelines:

This Guide constitutes the classification authority to be cited by persons without original classification authority (OCA) and should be used also by persons with OCA when the Guide properly describes and characterizes the information to be classified.

That is a very important distinction.....people who get nominated to become SoS do not magically somehow become an overnight expert on how to properly classify information.

The guideline is to assist every one at the SD.

Look at that again, and replace the OCA with a name and you get this:

This Guide constitutes the classification authority to be cited by persons without original classification authority (OCA) and should be used also by Hillary Clinton when the Guide properly describes and characterizes the information to be classified.


I think that sums it up very very very nicely.

Most classification scenarios are covered under those guidelines. Those that were not, she should have asked someone for guidance.

EDIT: add link: foia.state.gov...




edit on R092016-06-01T17:09:39-05:00k096Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R382016-06-01T17:38:17-05:00k386Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

All Hillary is doing right now is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Her campaign sent out 600 emails to top supporters trying to reassure them and to keep their support. Of course they used the same lie Clintons been using.

I am curious what the result would be if she were analyzed by a mental health professional.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: MotherMayEye
HERE'S a BIG one...off the top:
www.wsj.com...


And here's another BIG ONE piling on. How many straws to break the camel's back, or put stripes on the pant-suit?

Indictment Now LIKELY: www.foxnews.com...

The FAT LADY is warming up!



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

All Hillary is doing right now is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.



Omg that's priceless......


I don't think she will go down alone. If she goes down, it will be interesting to see who she tries to take with her.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

All Hillary is doing right now is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.



Omg that's priceless......


I don't think she will go down alone. If she goes down, it will be interesting to see who she tries to take with her.

Women & Children First!



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


That article make a very very very good point I hadn't even thought of....


If this goes beyond a recommendation and goes to court without a presidential pardon, the IG for the State Department will be a witness for the government.

She wouldn't stand a chance with a IG from the intelligence community and a IG from the SD on the stand as government witnesses.

I would wager that if this actually makes it to a court room... Hillary Clinton will be facing years in prison.


edit on R192016-06-01T20:19:18-05:00k196Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

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."



Ah. Didn't realize this. I never read Huff Po. This would also explain why most of their articles are terribly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I don't know how that site became so popular as a sourced news provider.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyrrho

They do have some 'legitimate' journalists. The article in the OP is a blog post though that has been thoroughly discussed from early on in the thread.

So far no one from HuffPo will own up to pulling the post nor can anyone link a quote from them directly from any named person from their editorial staff that will claim making the decision to pull the post. The closest I have been able to find is 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

Even the snopes 'debunk' doesn't quote any HuffPo employee. Does anyone know who made the actual call and is willing to own up to it?

I am still looking for a direct quote anywhere and hoping someone can bring one to the thread.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyrrho
Ah. Didn't realize this. I never read Huff Po. This would also explain why most of their articles are terribly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I don't know how that site became so popular as a sourced news provider.


Now imagine how "Honey Boo Boo" became a houshold name.. Explain that and you'll explain how Hillary isn't in jail..

B



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyrrho

originally posted by: Indigo5

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."



Ah. Didn't realize this. I never read Huff Po. This would also explain why most of their articles are terribly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I don't know how that site became so popular as a sourced news provider.


It's only popular with a small segment of the population. If you stay on it for more than a few minutes, you'll collect over 50 cookies and a Trojan or two. It's horrible for browsing.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
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


Truth is:
This election: between hillary and trump(Drumpf, smurf or whatever rolls off the top of his head) who would win? Is the darkest time since ancient greek democracy, and i am not even american, if those two are only real choice... my head hurts.
"Every nation gets the government it deserves", Joseph de Maistre. Just something to think about...



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I don't know if this has anything to do with possible pending action on Clinton, but...

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Statement on Planned Departure of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. was appointed by Obama, and was the legal supporter of all things Obama, including Obamacare.

It does say "planned", but I wonder how far in advance his departure was planned.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa


I am curious what the result would be if she were analyzed by a mental health professional.


She was and is diagnosed as suffering from "clinical narcissism". And this was back in 2007. No doubt she's become a lot worse.


Analysis of Hillary Reveals ‘Clinical Narcissism’



According to the American Psychiatric Association, this condition includes feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.”

humanevents.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
These Hilary is going to jail Threads has just as much weight as "planet Nibiru is just right around the corner. Everyone on the west coast will see it with their naked eye by summer 2012...
2013...
2014...
2015.....
a reply to: BIGPoJo



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Stylez1

Is it such a stretch of the imagination to think when a person commits a crime they will go to jail? Honestly, if a regular person had acted in the manner she did with classified documents you wouldn't only not be surprised by the notion, but you would fully expect that outcome.

Because Clinton is big and powerful you don't think the same laws apply to her. That, sadly, just shows to what extent the powerful have framed the discourse of right and wrong in American society, for it to be unthinkable we would hold them to the same standard...

O well, I'm back off to fairy tale land.
edit on 2-6-2016 by filched because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
92
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join