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: 9
92
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Congress will appoint a special prosecutor.

Simple as a dimple.





posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


It will never happen. The US will not prosecute a former member of a high level government position. There is a massive slippery slope involved in doing so. Hillary will not see jail for the same reasons W, Cheney, and Rove won't.


Yup.. Its what i tell people around me daily asking the "why isnt she in jail?" question.
Kinda flys over a lot of heads though.

B



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
here's a searing video report on the Huff article...

Still Report #905 - Clinton Will Be Indicted on Racketeering?



I LOVE the Still Report. Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

THANKS. Nice to have some encouraging news about the gritchy traitor aspiring to be Traitor=and-Criminal-in-Chief.

I wonder if she has her

'twisting in the wind'

and

'groveling in the gutter'

dances practiced yet. Naw. She doesn't believe in groveling. She delights to make "the little people" grovel.

MAYBE she really will harvest what she has soooooooooooo liberally and constantly sown.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Congress will appoint a special prosecutor.

Simple as a dimple.



And the political price for doing so is what? How many Republicans do you want to see jailed because of going after Hillary? It would happen.

Look at the price paid for going after Bill, Congress hasn't worked together for close to 20 years now, and he wasn't even successfully attacked.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Congress will appoint a special prosecutor.

Simple as a dimple.



And the political price for doing so is what? How many Republicans do you want to see jailed because of going after Hillary? It would happen.

Look at the price paid for going after Bill, Congress hasn't worked together for close to 20 years now, and he wasn't even successfully attacked.

The damage it would do to not indict her at this point is way more of a problem. Besides all criminals in government should be flushed out not just one side of the aisle. The RINO's have been willing participants and deserve whatever happens to them too.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

What damage? Right now Hillary Clinton is an unemployed/self employed person who introduces people to each other after building up a careers worth of networking. She's out of office, and she's not getting back into office. Right now she's essentially the political version of Match.com or AshleyMadison, which is not illegal.
edit on 30-5-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Already on snopes as unproven.

The article cites no sources or has any supporting evidence. That is why HuffingtonPpost pulled it. That article wouldn't have lasted long on here.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

The fact that Snopes is addressing this makes me even more confident the article was real.




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

The fact that Snopes is addressing this makes me even more confident the article was real.



I hope it is real. But for something that big, the newspaper is going to want sources. Something to cite. If it is true, it belongs on the front page, not the blog section.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
Already on snopes as unproven.

The article cites no sources or has any supporting evidence. That is why HuffingtonPpost pulled it. That article wouldn't have lasted long on here.


Snopes is not the defacto page that defines reality. Google "things snopes got wrong", this is one of them. The author has sources but he is not going to reveal them.

Actually, I am concerned for this guy's well being. He is playing with fire.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Note: BIGPoJo has been in communication with the author.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: reldra
Already on snopes as unproven.

The article cites no sources or has any supporting evidence. That is why HuffingtonPpost pulled it. That article wouldn't have lasted long on here.


Snopes is not the defacto page that defines reality. Google "things snopes got wrong", this is one of them. The author has sources but he is not going to reveal them.

Actually, I am concerned for this guy's well being. He is playing with fire.


The author has sort of protected himself by releasing the article...wouldn't you think?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: reldra
Already on snopes as unproven.

The article cites no sources or has any supporting evidence. That is why HuffingtonPpost pulled it. That article wouldn't have lasted long on here.


Snopes is not the defacto page that defines reality. Google "things snopes got wrong", this is one of them. The author has sources but he is not going to reveal them.

Actually, I am concerned for this guy's well being. He is playing with fire.


It says UNPROVEN. Not Hoax. I apologize that I don't fall over with glee, an article with no sources written by a

Film Producer, Frisbee Wizard, Humanitarian, Inventor, Spiritualologist, Technologist, Renaissance Man


On a Blog Page. I am surprised they caught it. I can put it up on CNN ireport now. Or just change names in it. It will stay up for awhile.

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



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The author has sort of protected himself by releasing the article...wouldn't you think?


No. If what he has written is untrue he could be opening himself up to numerous charges.

Liability reasons could be why the article was pulled.
edit on 30-5-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo



The author has sources but he is not going to reveal them.

Actually, I am concerned for this guy's well being. He is playing with fire.


You don't know that. You have absolutely no way of knowing if he has sources or not, unless you know him personally and have talked to him.

What you should be saying is that you hope he has sources because you hope Hillary hangs.

If we are going to speculate about this, let's at least be honest about it.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The author has sort of protected himself by releasing the article...wouldn't you think?


No. If what he has written is untrue he could be opening himself up to numerous charges.

Liability reasons could be why the article was pulled.


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.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

He did contact the author:



a reply to: BIGPoJo


originally posted by: syrinx high priest
contact the blogger, frank whatshisname


I did that before even posting the OP.


The author responded saying that he doesn't know why Huff Post took it down, he is waiting on an explanation from them.

 


I also reached out to the author and invited him to this thread but have not yet had a reply.
edit on 30-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)

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



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What evidence did the author share with the OP?



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

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.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join