Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Post by **Rogue One** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:06 am

A writer for Huffington Post reported that the FBI will pursue an indictment against Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Frank Hugenard, a scientist and freelance contributor, had his report removed by HuffPo editors and his account disabled with no explanation. The piece was titled, “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges” and it quickly went viral despite HuffPo’s efforts.

Hugenard says he has sources within the FBI who say the agency will recommend racketeering charges against Hillary. He explained:

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gamb|ing, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.

Huffington Post Politics senior editor Sam Stein says he has no idea why the post was removed. he refused to give further comment when Breitbart News contacted him. Stein said, “Sorry. I don’t know. I’d direct your question to a blog editor.”
Do you think Hillary Clinton will be indicted by the FBI?

Post by **Bubba1** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:47 am

Hmm. Difficult to say as the public has no access to any of the evidence. I'm sure anyone than watches FoxNews or supports Trump will not only say yes, they have already convicted her simply because they hate Hillary so much. The hate runs deep in modern politics.

Sounds like Sam Stein did a hot potato toss to get the heat away from himself. From what I read, the official reason the blog was yanked so quickly was because it had not yet been properly vetted by HuffPost blog editors. In other words, his blog may not have had enough credible or verifiable information to support his claims in order to be posted. Though one should question how an "unvetted" blog got released by HuffPo in the first place. It might end up being true. If so, then the blogger got himself a huge scoop, and it'll be buh-bye Hillary, hello Bernie. But, if it turns out to be a lie, there goes HuffPost's and the writer's credibility, and face potential lawsuits. Should be interesting to watch it develop.

Post by **ArmedAviator** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:35 am

Let's say it is all true and the FBI has good evidence against the Clinton Mafi....Foundation.

Loretta Lynch, being a good little Democrat, will decline to pursue criminal charges against her fellow partner in crime, especially to prevent her odds of becoming the next Supreme Leade..... Madam President. End of story.

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:39 am

Other political figures have done far worse and survived.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/us/po ... n-dies-at-
78.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FBarry%2C%20Marion%20S.%20Jr.&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Who really gives a crap about Hillary's emails except those on the far right that have hated her and gone after the Clinton's for more than twenty-five years.

Telcoman

Post by **Bubba1** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:09 am

telcoman wrote:Who really gives a crap about Hillary's emails except those on the far right that have hated her and gone after the Clinton's for more than twenty-five years.

Telcoman

Link doesn't work, plus we weren't discussing her emails. The topic is potential shenanigans with the Clinton Foundation.

Post by **Rogue One** » Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:30 pm

Bubba1 wrote:Link doesn't work, plus we weren't discussing her emails. The topic is potential shenanigans with the Clinton Foundation.

Yep, this is about the Clinton Foundation, which has received tens of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments. Hillary and the Democrats constantly paint the Republicans as being bought-and-paid-for, and yet here's their (Clinton's) "foundation" taking money from donors like Saudi Arabia, which gave between $10 million and $25 million.

Bernie Sanders says foreign donations to Clinton Foundation present a ‘conflict of interest.’

Post by **telcoman** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:48 am

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Perhaps but only after eight years of occupying the white house.

Telcoman

Post by **Bubba1** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:21 am

Howie, if it was a republican candidate that had a foundation with foreign government donors that may possibly have been granted political favors in exchange for donations, would you brush it aside as easily as you do the Clintons? Uh, no.

Post by **telcoman** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:07 am

A republican candidate as most other republicans would most likely refuse to disclose donor contributions.

All political contributions no matter who made them to whatever entity should be made public.

Romney refused to make public & show his tax returns and we all know that outcome.

The same outcome will be the result to Trump.

Telcoman

Post by **srellim234** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:49 am

From snopes.com:

"WHAT'S TRUE: Frank Huguenaud published an unvetted article on Huffington Post's Contributor platform claiming Hillary Clinton would be indicted on racketeering charges, an article that was soon removed from the site.

WHAT'S FALSE: No one else has reported on anything similar Huguenaud's claims, and his article provided no citations nor any credible information suggesting there was any truth to his claims." His article had 0 credibility and was properly taken down.

HuffPo is not going to allow the opposition to blindly make partisan political attacks on their site any more than Breitbart would allow a Democrat to make unsubstantiated claims on their site. Indictments may well be coming but it's highly questionable that Huguenard has that info.

Post by **Rogue One** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:07 pm

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary’s Foundation hid a $2.35 million foreign donation from the head of the Russian Govt’s uranium company that had business before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a clear violation of the memorandum of understanding with the Obama Administration.

The Washington Post confirms Hillary’s brother sits on the board of a mining company that scored an extremely rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton disbursed billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Haiti.

The Wall Street Journal confirms Hillary’s Foundation hid a foreign donation of 2 million shares of stock by a mining executive with business before Hillary’s State Dept.—a clear violation of the memorandum of understanding with the Obama Administration.

The New York Times confirms Hillary’s approval of the Russian takeover of Uranium One transferred 20% of All U.S. uranium to the Russian Govt.

Post by **srellim234** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:51 pm

Citing a string of articles like that is a far cry from any claim that the FBI is pursuing racketeering charges. As pointed out, there is nothing out there (yet) substantiating that claim in any way from a credible source.

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:32 am

Hillary is not going to be indicted. That is only republican wishful thinking

But here is another republican that was not only indicted but convicted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/us/mi ... v=top-news

Michael Hubbard, Alabama House Speaker, Is Convicted on 12 Felony Ethics Charges

By ALAN BLINDERJUNE 10, 2016

Telcoman

Post by **ArmedAviator** » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:14 am

I agree that she won't be indicted. The fact that she won't be indicted doesn't mean she hasn't committed a felony (many felonies realistically).

Remember folks, it's not who you know it's who you blow.

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:31 am

ArmedAviator wrote:I agree that she won't be indicted. The fact that she won't be indicted doesn't mean she hasn't committed a felony (many felonies realistically).

Ok so we agree on that point but where is the proof of a felony?

ArmedAviator wrote:Remember folks, it's not who you know it's who you blow.

Where did you obtain this perjorative piece of information about Hillary?

Telcoman

Post by **ArmedAviator** » Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:21 am

If you read my two quoted statements, the first one does not say she had committed a felony. I said a lack of an indictment does not prove innocence, just as an indictment does not prove guilt. That's for the courts to decide (but it never gets to court if there's no charges).

As for my second statement, that was a great real statement towards the general population. It's the explicit version of brown nosing.

Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Re: Hillary Clinton to be Indicted

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums