HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » IdaBriggs » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559

Journal Archives

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
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!


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

Question submitted by IdaBriggs

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

Kindly STOP Disrespecting the Intelligence Community in defense


The nonsense argument that "nothing bad happened" is OBSCENE because the members of the Intelligence Community CANNOT TELL US about anything BAD that resulted from the Secretary of State's email being compromised without endangering national security.

If they do know about "assets lost" (that means "people spying on our behalf", they can't reveal it. If they do know about missions that went south, again, they can't reveal it.

They can't say whether Russia or China have copies of all of Hillary's emails, or only the ones Guccifer posted when he hacked into Blumenthal's account. We know Blumenthal had stuff he had no business having, and names were named. We know conversations were repeated when only a handful of people were in the room, and the people there increased their chances of figuring out "who was passing information to the Americans" just from emails on Wikileaks.

But we will never KNOW if our people died in our service due to carelessness, because our people won't further risk compromising National Security so they can say "j'accuse!" to the woman whose poor decision making may or may not have played a role in whatever happened -- or didn't.

It is disingenuous to say "nothing happened" when the only people who can confirm that for truth are bound to silence in defense of this country.

We don't KNOW and Team Hillary is counting on them to stay silent for love of country.

So please, STOP with the "no harm done" bullshit. The rules were intended to protect not only this country, but the people who work to defend it.

She broke the rules. Unless you are willing to put your bones and blood on the line, stop pretending increasing their risk doesn't matter.

It's ignorant, and embarrassing, and shames us all.

They matter. She knew better. Their lives matter.

NPR: Diane Rehms Show, Clinton Email, 05/31/2016


Hillary Clinton has come under renewed scrutiny over her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Last week the State Department’s inspector general released its report after investigating the matter. The report concluded that Clinton did not follow the requirements for handling records and should not have used a private server for department emails. Clinton’s critics were quick to say it underscores a lack of trustworthiness. Her defenders say she did little more than make a mistake by using a private server and there’s nothing in the inspector general’s report that’s very damaging. Diane and her guests discuss the continuing controversy over Hillary Clinton’s emails.


Brian Fallon, spokesman for the Clinton campaign
Eric Lichtblau reporter, The New York Times
Jonathan Turley professor of public interest law, The George Washington University Law School
Hilary Rosen Democratic strategist; managing director, SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting and PR firm; and a CNN contributor

Okay, these are my notes written for you guys while listening. Feel free to listen yourself to clarify. Enjoy!

Brian Fallon spins as hard as he can, but sounds stupid. "She printed out a bunch of emails, and she answers questions, and Donald Trump is scary!" Diane Rehmes actually holds him to the questions, and makes it obvious he doesn't answer, especially "why didn't she do an interview with the State Inspector General?" The "because DOJ review" sounds weak and he means "FBI interview".

Turley is really good and points out she would have no way of knowing what Powell did in 2001-2005 while Rice didn't use ANY in 2005-2009, Lichtblau says "the IG report contradicts what she has said for the last year", Rosen says "no harm/no foul" and lies about the classification stuff. Turley says National Security concerns were egregious; he's had classification since Reagan years, and smacks Rosen's lies down HARD. He also had clearance during Hillary's tenure, so he knows the excuses are stupid. Lichtblau says the "no classification stamp isn't going to be a get out of jail free card". Rosen relies on the fact the Intelligence Community can't publicly complain about any damage her mistakes have caused. Then their is an argument about whether there is a trust issue - Rosen says she's admired, and Turley calls out the bad polls, spins and "errors in judgment". He also thinks she's been compromised by the Russians! Lichtblau talks about Guccifer and hacking attempts, along with Hillary refusing to go to a ".gov" account.

1st Caller: Very upset about "classified documents marked and unmarked' as a load of crap; he has two decades of experience with a Top Secret clearance" and never saw "retroactive classification" so he knows it's spin. Rosen says again "no harm/no foul" and Turley points out the Russians wouldn't be publicly bragging if they did. Allegations are there may have been "jumping the gap" between the "secure vs non-secure" systems, and that is so egregious -- "you're gone!"

Someone writes in saying they are okay with everything because "poor Hillary wants privacy". Then Rosen says Hillary has been using this email account since Bill left office, which we all know is a lie. Lichtblau points out "red herring" because no one cares about her personal emails; it's the work ones that are a problem. Then the FBI Director stuff gets brought up -- nothing new. Comey gets accolades for being trustworthy. The State Department was looking at procedures, and everything was clear. This will impact the criminal investigation.

2nd Caller: everybody knew she was using a private email, and it only became a big deal when she started running for president. Lichtblau says "untrue!" It was kept to her inner circle, and the damming part is when two staff were told "never speak of this again". Rosen says people should have said something to her in person.

Tweeter: how is it going to impact her in California or in the General? Answer: it depends what the DOJ says.

3rd Caller: Trump and Bernie are getting traction because of the trust issues and how she keeps lying. Rosen says "I don't understand accusations of her not being responsive."

4th Caller: 13 minutes of Hillary lying video is a sound byte against her. She's a woman, and being overly scrutinized. Poor Hillary!

Turley says stuff Hillary says is UNTRUE. He gives examples. Diane Rehmes says it's true she changes positions. Rosen says she's a lesbian and she doesn't like that Hillary is being held to account for "twenty years ago" and plus Hillary is smart.

Lichtblau says he'll stay away from policy, but he can say that Hillary's story has changed about email - aggressively "did no wrong" went to "everybody did it" to "maybe I made a mistake" to "aren't we all just sick of it?"

5th Caller: She doesn't handle these issues well; she just didn't want to have a trail. Trustworthy and character matter - voters need to know whether illegal stuff happened to disqualify her.

Turley says "intent to harm the nation" doesn't matter about INTENT because you don't play with classified information on a non-secure system. He also says Hillary is hurting herself by using "legally nonsensical" arguments ("it wasn't classified at the time" which just infuriate investigators who know better. Rosen feels sorry for the people at the campaign; the media is being mean when she needs to give the investigators space because "voters don't care - at least Democratic primary voters".

It ends with Bernie's quote about "let's forget about the damn emails" taken out of context.

It's not going away. Told you so.
Go to Page: 1