Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

The sun never leaves the sky. The planet rotates and we just can't see it but it's still up there. Who is going to ask me to point out the sun at night?
Now on topic what does Fox and friends say? Do they claim it's correct? Do they give a source?

Point out the Sun in the night sky.
I just did.
Do you understand that the sky is the area of atmosphere visible above?
At night, the Sun is not visible in the SKY.
It leaves the sky.
Maybe you should check a dictionary to verify what the sky is, vs looking down at the Earth.
You don't deny that the night sky exists... do you?
On topic, this OP could grow legs next week.

It does not leave the sky. but all of this is just about as off topic as this thread has gotten.

You would think with all the razz-matazz about this article, the Justice Department would make a statement?

Silence is Golden comes to mind.

a reply to: xuenchen

Have they been asked for one? If not, that is telling, too.

Our 'press' is an a-hole.

a reply to: xuenchen

I can't find anywhere where a HuffPo person will take responsibility for taking it down. The closest I've found is this:

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?

Anyone?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well that's a hot one isn't it.

The "story" is looking more and more real now.

I go back to the "news embargo" theory.

Somebody screwed up bigtime.

What a comedy of errors.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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?

Anyone?

There should be a readily available explanation from HuffPo for retracting information from their site -- unless there were no actual terms violated.

Honestly, IMO, I think this retraction -- like everything else -- just shows how controlled the information surrounding Hillary Clinton is. I feel like her scandals are always in the headlines, on purpose. It's all leading up to Bernie emerging as the nominee, in time for the convention...but then quickly buried by a pardon before any significant damage is done to Hillary's *ahem* reputation.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Your idea is getting warmer by the day !

By the way, predictit has the following as of the time I am making this post:

Will a federal criminal charge be filed against Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Latest Price: 35¢ 4¢

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
By the way, predictit has the following as of the time I am making this post:

Will a federal criminal charge be filed against Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Latest Price: 35¢ 4¢

Bernie as the nominee has gone from .04¢ to .13¢ in recent weeks, too.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

One comment from that ....

Pch5150 • 39 minutes ago

Cheryl Mills replied "I dont recall" 40 times, and "I don't know" 182 times during testimony. Does anybody actually think these people have nothing to hide? Do you live amongst humans?

and I would load up on call options for those shares !!!

Never happen let's look at the real world. FBI completes investigation and finds there indeed may be criminal wrong doing. Well the justice department would have to bring charges very unlikely in fact won't happen. This leaves two options the OBama administration could prosecute again won't happen. Third option congress appoints special prosecutor look who's in control not an option.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: mbkennel

Unless Obama issues pardon in which case she is most likely home free. Another poster noted that a pardon can be issued without the person being convicted of a crime.

It would be as good as a guilty verdict to the public. lol!

So either way, it needs to go to court.

a reply to: dragonridr

Nah, if the FBI recommends indictment it will be because they have an airtight, open and shut, slam dunk case. They are being extra thorough for a Clinton. And you better believe the DOJ will follow through on a indictment where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. I don't care how political Lynch is, she will follow through or she be impeached and they will appoint a special prosecutor who is not political to follow through.

a reply to: filched

Honestly I don't think she will be indicted unless they have an open and shut case of treason with her selling access to policy and the SD through the Clinton Foundation.

That would be the only crime that someone (Lynch or the rest of the administration) would not be willing to risk themselves over

a reply to: filched

Can't help but read your post like a Grimm's fairy tale.

While i cling to the hope what you've written would happen, i can only beg for a real world example of such precedence that would give me hope for what you say is realistically possible.

Give me that and i'll give you my hope.

B

I see nobody has posted about the leaked email on WikiLeaks.
That is Check and Mate.

18 U.S. Code § 793 Section F

Buck

twitter.com...

originally posted by: flatbush71
I see nobody has posted about the leaked email on WikiLeaks.
That is Check and Mate.

18 U.S. Code § 793 Section F

Buck

Give us a hint of what to search for, I am unused to navigating wikileaks entirely.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

18 USC 793 is a section of the espionage act where violation only requires gross negligence.

The link for the law is in my post on page 14.

* - 18 USC Chapter 37 - Espionage Act
A - 18 USC § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Also something I noticed while watching a documentary. Sometime back Sandy Berger was caught removing documents from the National archives and destroying them. When he addressed the media he pulled the whole "it was an honest mistake" sound bite. Clinton used the exact same line with the Email server when she realized t was not going away.

Just an observation.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: flatbush71
I see nobody has posted about the leaked email on WikiLeaks.
That is Check and Mate.

18 U.S. Code § 793 Section F

Buck

Give us a hint of what to search for, I am unused to navigating wikileaks entirely.

This is the email in question. Basically, Hillary is ordering a lackey to break the law.

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.