HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Two Problems with the Hil...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:06 PM

 

Two Problems with the Hillary/FBI RICO Story

Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, nothing truly goes away.

#1: The author, Frank Huguanard, is NOT a credentialed journalist. He also provides no source for the biggest part of his story, specifically detailing out what the FBI is actually going to do.

Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges, May 29, 2016: https://archive.is/bERJ6#selection-1599.0-1623.205
<snip>
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.

“The New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.” -- Bloomberg Politics

Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillary’s home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling.

Here’s what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities.
<more at link>

Although many links are provided to "back up" his assertions (see below), "psychic intuition" is simply not a credible source for the portrayal of "insider knowledge" of what the Director of the FBI is going to do. At the end of the day, this is an opinion piece about what the author thinks will happen.

I did a little "Google" on the man, and he honestly seems nice enough. Like most of the people here on DU, he seems very interested in politics. He also apparently has a green thumb with heirloom tomatoes -- these plants are HUGE!

Https://

But he really isn't a credible source about the FBI or the DOJ activity beyond what is already being reported on the Internet.

#2: I had to look around to verify this guy wasn't credible, because I would not be surprised if the FBI does go for a RICO charge.

And that goes right to the heart of the problem with viewing Hillary Clinton as trustworthy. Between the never ending lies and deliberate attempts to confuse people (email accounts are not the same thing as private servers), and the fact the Clintons went from (per Hillary) "dead broke" to "mega rich" faster than his pension and her salary could reasonably account for, plus her laughably non-credible "inspirational speaking" career, she is not seen by a large percentage of voters as a person of integrity. I am hoping the FBI gives a nice press conference proclaiming her innocence of any form of wrong doing, but my own life experience does not find that scenario plausible.

And no, it's not "decades of right wing attacks" -- it is constant BAD JUDGMENT and cringeworthy STUPID lying. Why make a production of handing over 50,000 pages of printed emails unless you are trying to either be an ass or cover something up? Just put it on a stick, and let the recipient kill the trees, and maybe send an apology note for not having left the "work emails at work", too.

But she didn't, and now the entire Party is in an uproar because the best fundraisers we have are scandal magnets, and a large portion of the population would not be surprised at a criminal indictment.

The bar for acceptable behavior has officially been lowered.

And one of the worst things is how this election cycle is tainting the reputation of the rest of the party. I literally paused on his last two sentences --

"Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBI’s investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering."

Yes, that would be a reasonable plot twist. And that scares me!

Maybe politics has always been like this - back room deals with slush funds for one candidate, and questionable tactics employed to keep the voters in a frenzy of hope for promises that can't be kept. I don't want to be cynical, but this guy's theories don't sound as far fetched as they used to, once upon a time, before the Internet....

But I am going to continue to await the FBI report. Hillary's word is just not good enough





Links from Article NOTE: All mainstream.

Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations, Bloomberg Politics, May 13, 2016: https://archive.is/rknnm

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal, The New York Times, March 18, 2016: https://archive.is/crhPw

State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules, Politico, May 27, 2016: https://archive.is/nXWhW

Employee at Clinton's email hosting company feared cover-up, Politico, April 3, 2016: https://archive.is/Ahdqi

Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands, McClatchy DC October 6, 2015 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html#storylink=cpy

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, Cornell University Law School, September 1, 2015: https://archive.is/pp4Mj

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information, Cornell University Law School, July 13, 2015: https://archive.is/S6c5J

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements, Office of Inspector General, May 2016: http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6c/oig-report.pdf

What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, Politifact, May 12, 2016: https://archive.is/WYja6

30 replies, 2871 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Two Problems with the Hillary/FBI RICO Story (Original post)
IdaBriggs Jun 2016 OP
Faux pas Jun 2016 #1
YouDig Jun 2016 #2
morningfog Jun 2016 #3
scscholar Jun 2016 #4
7wo7rees Jun 2016 #6
Blue Meany Jun 2016 #9
7wo7rees Jun 2016 #5
IdaBriggs Jun 2016 #11
amandabeech Jun 2016 #7
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #8
IdaBriggs Jun 2016 #12
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #13
IdaBriggs Jun 2016 #18
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #19
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #10
riversedge Jun 2016 #21
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #23
riversedge Jun 2016 #24
frylock Jun 2016 #25
AzDar Jun 2016 #14
Tarc Jun 2016 #15
VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #16
2banon Jun 2016 #17
Dem2 Jun 2016 #20
randome Jun 2016 #22
COLGATE4 Jun 2016 #26
beachbumbob Jun 2016 #27
libdem4life Jun 2016 #28
IdaBriggs Jun 2016 #29
realmirage Jun 2016 #30

Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:08 PM

1. K N R-ed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:11 PM

2. Hate to break it to you, but you don't get RICO for an email server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:12 PM

3. I hate to break it to you, it isn't as simple as your mind.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:13 PM

4. This

 

The idea that refusing to wait on glacially slow government IT and getting stuff done instead should be a RICO offense is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:17 PM

6. Hate to say this but you have just been running around all

Over DU trashing every post with what your perceptions are. It really is getting to being annoying in a rather extreme way.

And you are right about RICO and email and server, but take it to the next level sweetie. "Pay to Play", Clinton Foundation, SOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:32 PM

9. I think the RICO speculation is about the Clinton Foundation, and the appearance

 

of bribes and/or shaking down foreign governments for donations in exchange for approving sales of weapons. I think this is unlikely to be true--the Clintons are just not that desperate for money--and nearly impossible to prove, if it were true. What might be true is that Bill Clinton timed some of his donation requests around arms purchases, which is arguably unethical but probably is not a crime. In any case, it takes a long time to build a RICO case and I don't think that would be completed within the time frame of the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:14 PM

5. For some time have believed email issue is distraction for/from

much larger issue. Pay to play and the "Clinton Foundation".
Didn't Carlin say it best? Paraphrasing, it is a club and we are not in it.

IdaB, you have put a lot of time into this research.
Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7wo7rees (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:10 PM

11. I copied his links and spent some

 

Time looking for him, but honestly, I already had learned about this stuff from DU, except in bits and pieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:26 PM

7. You may very well be on to something.

 

I've seen stories like these, and the undisclosed donations coupled with the Canadian foundation linked to the guy who got the uranium deal paint a startlingly bad picture.

The e-mail problem, although serious, is just the beginning.

The FBI may have enough, or be on the trail of enough, to put together a case for criminal RICO. That criminal RICO case would pull in many people in addition to Hillary. Bill would be caught, as would Chelsea, probably, in addition to many others.

I hope that someone at the DNC is bracing for this, and has a plan B for criminal referral from the FBI to the DOJ from now until the inauguration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:28 PM

8. So are you saying the guy (Crazy Frank) isn't credible

but you are quoting from his article anyway?

"Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBI’s investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering."

Did I misunderstand? Or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:17 PM

12. His "conclusions" are speculation/not

 

"reporting" and thus not credible BUT (and this was my second point) I actually wouldn't be surprised if it happened. I was also taken aback by his last two sentences -- and seriously, that whole Hillary Victory Fund deal just seems Not Legit -- gave me a "hmmm" moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:28 PM

13. I wouldn't be surprised if

Bernie didn't get busted for the bank deal with Jane. There is an ethics violation regarding his influence peddling for a loan that brought down an entire institution while she got the sweetheart deal of a couple hundred thousand dollars for her efforts right before she was fired.

Speculation only of course. See how easy that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:40 PM

18. Talk to me when the FBI and DOJ get involved.

 

The difference between smear (what you did) versus speculation is credible sources which is why this "RICO" story isn't credible. But as I said, her "trustworthy" numbers are so low, it seems plausible.

The FBI is the final arbiter. Her word is not enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:58 PM

19. If diGenova is to be believed the FBI are involved

as well as DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:34 PM

10. I get to unveil a new image a friend created, laugh my ass off !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:02 PM

21. LOVE it!! Kinda fits in with the unicorns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:08 PM

23. The other one with the man was kind of offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:29 PM

24. I missed that one. but that is ok. See enough offensive stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:40 PM

25. It will be even funnier once the FBI issues their recommendation to indict!

bahahahahahahaha!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:29 PM

14. K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:30 PM

15. The Sanders camp is doubling down on the Emailgate antics today, I see

This is fizzling faster than Benghazi did on Trey Gowdy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:32 PM

16. VERY nicely torn apart, Ida!

K/r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:32 PM

17. Excellent post Ida, thank you

 

I'm of the same mind. Personally, I don't expect an indictment, not ever.

But I'm no psychic, I'm just looking at stuff like Fitzmas and countless other instances of corruption and nefarious machinations throughout our entire history which went unnoticed by the press or the justice dept, and yet there it is in countless history books.

(DNA origins of Tammany Hall began before we were officially, USA)

My sense there is a very dangerous shell game in play, only to be revealed at some point after the primaries.

In the meantime, I won't be reading anything stating: "FBI WILL be bringing charges or indictments any day now, or sometime soon"


Only if, FBI HAS handed over an indictment. Grand Jury Subpoena or other procedures, will I read, if from credible source.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:00 PM

20. Email conspiracy theorists on a rampage today

Good job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:08 PM

22. You continue to overlook the fact that the Clinton Foundation is a PUBLIC charity.

 

No matter how much money Clinton asks to be donated to it, it is the CF Board that decides how to disburse it. And the 'just $9 million figure is disingenuous, to say the least.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.
Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

So you and Crazy Frank and Carly Fiorina are all wrong. Because you don't care about anything but trashing a Democrat.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:45 PM

26. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:45 PM

27. Bogus story...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:06 AM

28. So how does someone go from broke to fabulously

 

wealthy in 20 years or so. Taxes alone, not assuming it was laundered through the CF, would be huge. To Net that kind of money ????? Four huge mansions, HRC is reported to have never driven since the 90s???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:38 PM

29. To be fair, 16 years. Maybe that was the topic of the "inspirational talks"

 

she gave?

Some people think corruption is involved, but that is a cynical thought process, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:25 PM

30. Facts are a lot like math

 

And Hillary has both on her side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread