Charges Filed-- Hillary Clinton Charged With Racketeering

[DarkFury]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

 

[Skylar]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Yeah, notice not the slightest use of the term 'charges'. How the term 'charge' doesn't appear in any tense in any capacity in the entire article?

Only the spectacularly dishonest OP used the term 'charge' in a bit of thread baiting. The only example of 'charges' being used to describe this...

....is your thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

It's gotten to the point where no one believes anything a USMB rightist posts, one is compelled to research first to determine whether or not it's just another conservative lie.

Its not the conservatives...its the fucking teapers. They are like a virus to both the GOP and America. The simple process of lying is against every Conservative values.

A bunch of hypocrites.

Again, it's becoming – or has become – a distinction without a difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

 

[DarkFury]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

 

[Skylar]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

 

[DarkFury]

The issue of a charge DURING a civil suit is very real. Take divorce for example. You can be charged with adultery.
Can You Be Charged With Adultery After You File for Divorce LegalZoom Legal Info
So a civil charge has a fair chance of becoming a criminal charge in a lesser court.

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

The term applies as shown in the thread. Don't worry the ANTI-Hillary train is coming. Two came this month and two next month.
Counting the ones here it's growing just fine.

You democrats just DO NOT understand. Back when Bill was president half the country hated her. Now it's more! You picked the WRONG person at the WRONG time. Your idiot of a president stirs up hate on purpose and WE THE PEOPLE have little recourse but voting.

People UNITE very quickly in hate, FAR faster then anything and they HATE Hillary AND Obama AND democrats. We winged him in 2014 and he KNOWS it. 2016 we get ALL three!

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yet she is going to be our next president. She'll remove all the charges once in power.

She will be lucky damn lucky to come in 5th in Iowa.

true considering she will be the only one running --LOL

 

[DarkFury]

Yet she is going to be our next president. She'll remove all the charges once in power.

She will be lucky damn lucky to come in 5th in Iowa.

true considering she will be the only one running --LOL

I think Cruz and Rubio will out do her. Bush and Walker are maybes.

 

[Skylar]

Um, your source doesn't say anything about civil 'charges' become criminal 'charges'. Or assign any likelyhood to it.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Seriously, go to Google. Type 'Hillary', 'Racketeering' and 'Charges'.

There's only this thread.

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

The term applies as shown in the thread.

Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.

It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.

Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on popular vote wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.

What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.

 

[DarkFury]

You will find this on Google as well.
Hillary Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails - AOL.com

And MY work as well can be found on Google.

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

The term applies as shown in the thread.

Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.

It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.

Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.

What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.

Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.

 

[ScienceRocks]

james t kirk

 

[Synthaholic]

This is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.

Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill

Any idiot can file charges.

 

[Skylar]

Are you and others on the right even aware you're liars, or is it a sickness that just blinds you to this fact.

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

The term applies as shown in the thread.

Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.

It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.

Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.

What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.

Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.

Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.

And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.

Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?

Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The closes thing to electing a loserterian is ross perot, lol. The guy didn't do very fucking good.

I'd stick to moderates that support infrastructure, science, r&d and some education.

 

[DarkFury]

Face it, you are NOT going to be able to stop the Hillary attacks. She IS that hated. You democrats NEED someone else.
And you better start looking fast because the party just might throw her under the bus.

The party likes Warren better despite her legal problems as well.

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

The term applies as shown in the thread.

Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.

It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.

Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.

What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.

Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.

Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.

And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.

Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?

Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.

See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.

 

[hazlnut]

This is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.

Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill

Do you realize you got Ted Cruz in you sig.

Someone hacked your account and is playing a trick on you.

Cruz... LOL

 

[Skylar]

If she's as vulnerable as you imagine, you wouldn't have needed to thread bait with terms you know don't apply.

But you did.

The term applies as shown in the thread.

Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.

It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.

Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.

What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.

Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.

Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.

And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.

Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?

Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.

See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.

Laughing....where have I heard that before? Wait, it'll come to me.

Oh, that's it! The LAST time they held Benghazi hearings. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. Your ilk are on what? The 9th round? The 8th investigation?

Face it....either republicans are the most piss poor investigators on god's green earth, putting the 'eh' in 'spectacularly inept', so incompetent that it takes them 8 separate investigations to do what any competent investigator could do in one....

.......or they've got nothing.

I'm going with 'yes'.

 

[DarkFury]

The term applies as shown in the thread.

Yet in the entire English speaking world the only person who used the term 'charged' was you. Because you wanted to falsely make people believe that a civil lawsuit was a criminal charge. Not one source you've ever cited did what you did. You even straight up lied about how civil lawsuits often turn into criminal charges.

It was complete nonsense. You have to manufacture what you believe already exists. You have to deceive people into believing what you claim they already believe. If you really believed what you claimed, there's be zero need to do any of that. Yet you needed to. And you know you needed to.

Demonstrating that even you don't buy your bullshit.

Democrats will be facing...
1, Republicans
2, Libertarians
3, Tea Party Members
4, Christians
5, Catholics
6. Hispanics
And if TPP goes through add unions and other democrats!

Uh-huh. And yet the republicans have managed to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential candidate a grand total of ONCE in the last generation. Odd that democrats have out performed republicans by a factor of 5 to 1 on presidential wins over the last quarter century given the supposed 'legion' you imagine against them.

What are you missing that has produced such an embarrassingly bad record for republican presidential candidates? It wasn't even close in the last two elections. They were easy victories.

Think post Nixon. Think post Carter.
BOTH were based on HATE for policy AND practice.

Dude, Reagan had scandals that made Obama look like he's playing patty cake. His Secretary of the Interior was indicated. Their assistants. ANd their assistants. His Secretary of Defense. BOTH of his National Security Advisors. Reagan's Chief of Staff. Reagan's Press Secretary. IT was a corruption free for all.

And Bush I was still elected. Other than 2004, you have to all the way back to Bush 1 before you can find an actual republican electoral victory. That's how bad Republicans are at convincing the electorate to vote for them. Its happened a grand total of ONCE since 1988.

Democrats in comparison have managed the job 5 times. 4 of them easily. But its the democrats that are in trouble?

Laughing.......you sound like you're trying to convince yourself way harder than you're trying to convince me. And neither of us are buying your bullshit.

See you after the Benghazi hearings. I will bring you a towel.

Laughing....where have I heard that before? Wait, it'll come to me.

Oh, that's it! The LAST time they held Benghazi hearings. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. Your ilk are on what? The 9th round? The 8th investigation?

Face it....either republicans are the most piss poor investigators on god's green earth, putting the 'eh' in 'spectacularly inept', so incompetent that it takes them 8 separate investigations to do what any competent investigator could do in one....

.......or they've got nothing.

I'm going with 'yes'.

Democrats controlled those hearings but not this one.

 

[DarkFury]

This is the FIRST of what maybe many charges to be filed. Charges have been filed on Hillary Clinton for RACKETEERING.
News Distribution Network Inc.

Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails TheHill

Do you realize you got Ted Cruz in you sig.

Someone hacked your account and is playing a trick on you.

Cruz... LOL

Must be the same person who did your islamic avatar.