A Hillary Indictment Seems Assured. RICO makes sense. Here's Why.

[berni_mccoy]

Many people might not remember the news that the State Department sent the subpoenas to the Clinton Foundation. Here is the story from back in Feb 2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

From the story:

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The

subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin,

a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

Just like Hillary's IT guy, Bryan Pagliano, Hillary had Huma working for both her own private interests and for the State Department.

Let's review federal law on this. From https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42857.pdf

According to USC 18 section 201-209:

No employee of the U.S. government may receive anything of value “for or because of” any official act performed or to be performed by that employee or officer;12 no employee may receive or share in compensation for private “representational services” rendered to parties in any matter before a federal agency;13 federal employees may not represent private parties in any matter in which the United States is a party or is interested, before an agency of the government or a court, whether for compensation or not;14 federal employees must disqualify themselves from working on any government matter in which they have a personal financial interest, or in which a firm or entity for whom they serve as an officer or employee has a financial interest;15 and no executive branch employee may be compensated by a private source for his or her government work, that is, one may not receive salary supplementation from outside private sources for services performed within the scope of one’s federal employment.16
Furthermore, no federal government officer or employee may receive any compensation (“emoluments”) from a foreign government or other official foreign entity, without the consent of Congress,17 nor may any federal employee act as an “agent” of a “foreign principal.”18 Employees of the federal government who earn over a particular amount are restricted by tax consequences from “self-dealings” with private foundations, which may include limitations on the receipt of compensation and expenses from such entities.19

Plain and simple, Abedin and Pagliano were double paid for the services they rendered for Hillary, and that is illegal. The minimum punishment is 1 year in prison with a 5 year maximum. Pagliano knew this, as did Hillary, and is one of the reasons he plead the 5th and likely received a plea deal. Just before the story broke on the Clinton Foundation Subpeonas it was reported that the FBI had expanded it's investigation of the private server to the Clinton Foundation: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265402-report-fbi-expanding-clinton-investigation-to-look-into-public-corruption

The illegal moonlighting of Hillary staff is by statute bribery and embezzlement and the Clinton Foundation connection itself leads to bribery and corruption. RICO is suited just for a case like this and also explains why the investigation has gone on so long. The charges brought against Terry McCauliffe involving illegal campaign contributions involving the Clinton Foundation is simply the first official shoe to drop in the broader RICO investigation of the Clintons.

[NCTraveler]

1. You are leading the charge. Well done.

I suggest you up your game. It will make your fall that much harder.

[frylock]

36. The ironing is delicious.

[NCTraveler]

40. "The ironing is delicious."

Don't do much. Wouldn't know.

[kwassa]

41. not with too much spray starch.

[randome]

79. Then you're not doing it right.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[mythology]

2. The fact that you desperately want it,

Doesn't actually make it likely.

[SCantiGOP]

61. Two more weeks

and no more of the crap like this Op being posted

[dchill]

3. Somewhere in the ether...

Brains are hurting! Stop making sense!

[YouDig]

4. Assured! Stepping up the crazy desperation in the waning days.

[Happyhippychick]

5. Contribute to Bernie now!

[SCantiGOP]

62. I just sent $28

to Pat Robertson, cause it will take Divine Intervention for Bernie to win.

[CorkySt.Clair]

6. There's something in the near future that is assured alright

But I don't think it's what you think it is.

[elleng]

7. Sounds logical but

there's politics involved in an indictment. I'm not betting.

[Land of Enchantment]

8. Follow the Money. The cover-up will always nail you.

From the beginning of this mess I have had a very sick feeling about the Clinton Foundation. As a recovering accountant I have seen bizarre efforts to hide, disguise and otherwise finagle money manipulation. The CF has that written all over it and no doubt the reason the FBI investigation is taking so long is because there are more and more rocks to turn over as the money trail branches out like the delta of a river.

RICO covers a lot of territory and I see a myriad of issues--primarily embezzlement, bribery and racketeering.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racketeer

This is far from over. Anything can happen.

[snagglepuss]

11. Recovering accountant. Besides thanking you for the lol, I'd be interested knowing

what you think of a little mom and pop Little Rock accounting firm handling the accounts for the Foundation.

[Land of Enchantment]

22. heh heh...if you are asking about BKD, LLP, not much---and not much of PwC either.

I read BKD just settled a lawsuit brought by the FDIC a few years ago. PwC took over suddenly--the accounting methods were changed to accrual basis and the CF failed somehow to distinguish foreign donations from other sources of income having reported it all separately for all the prior years..bizarre because it was for 2010, 2011 and 2012--while she was SoS. They had to get PwC to amend the returns and report the 990's

Thought about doing an oped on it because I think the Clinton Foundation is the charitable (?) equivalent of ENRON and remember--ENRON brought down Arthur Anderson..... 2.1 billion and how much disbursed--reported amounts vary but a drop in the bucket.

These are not accounting errors.

[jwirr]

43. In you first paragraph are you talking about the amended

tax forms that happened no so long ago? There was an article about using a Canadian firm to pass the money on from a foreign donor and that it was very suspicious.

The article is somewhere here in the archives but I do not know where.

The Harper's article is the one I was thinking about.

[snagglepuss]

59. Comparing VF to ENRON is eyepopping. I really do hope you write an oped.

Did you read a few months back an article I posted entitled The Clinton System, written by an academic and "tucked away" in the NYT Book Review? If not you'd find it interesting.

[2cannan]

34. Both of these links talk about the accountants

Did the Clinton Foundation Have a Storefront Accountant Like Madoff?
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/05/did-the-clinton-foundation-have-a-storefront-accountant-like-madoff/

Shaky Foundations
http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

[onenote]

9. If you're going to "review federal law" on the subject of Abedin and Pagliano's employment

you might want to mention 18 USC 202, which creates a class of "special government employees" who essentially work for the government part time while also working for the private sector. There were an estimated 100 such employees at the State Department alone in 2012.

By the way, what "charges" have been brought against Terry McAuliffe (and if you're going to smear someone at least have the courtesy to spell their name correctly)?

[berni_mccoy]

10. Pagliano and Abedin don't fit that definition

"for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days, temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent basis"

They were both hired full-time by State.

[rusty fender]

13. Why are you wasting your time on DU

when it is obvious that you should be working as a lawyer for the DOJ? Maybe as a consultant?

You've got Hillary dead-to-rights

Better call the AG and get 'er done!

[berni_mccoy]

14. Why are you wasting your time on DU

snidely refuting someone you don't feel has a valid point...

Better take a self-assessment and get 'er done.

[leveymg]

37. Touche, with style.

[onenote]

17. Yes. And then they transitioned to Special Government Employee

and were not paid as full time employees.

But you presumably knew that if you have been studying this as closely as you claim.

[berni_mccoy]

19. They do not meet the definition no matter how much onenote wants it to be

But I sympathize with you.

[Blue Meany]

27. As I recall from the Clinton Foundation's 990 form, most of the

senior people are listed as working only a few hours a week, and none more than half-time. I was rather taken aback by this, given that some were getting six-figure salaries.

[yourout]

78. Good work if you can get it I guess.

[CentralMass]

80. They roll a little differently then us peasants.

[snagglepuss]

12. KnR nt

[AntiBank]

15. I suspect RICO would be used against the Clinton Foundation

https://archive.is/bERJ6

That is from a Huffington Post article that was pulled with no reason given.

[onenote]

18. It was pulled because it was an unsourced, unvetted article

written by a nutjob.

As has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512088683

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Nah that article had to be 110 percent bulletproof

So eve it is was a little correct no editor will keep that. From what I understand it was not even a little correct all my wishing for something (as some accuse) does not mean I cancel my thinking, (like they do)

[Dem2]

16. I see the dumpster is being fully emptied this time

Good job!

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, berni_mccoy.

[Arazi]

21. Well dayum!

[Tarc]

23. So first the "gross negligence" angle of the Espionage Act fizzled like a wet firecracker

Now we're trying out RICO for size?

C'mon berni, you know better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. If you were paying attention

You would know this has been an angle for months that FBI is pursuing. This case is myltifasceted...the other one has a very long fuse.

None expects you to even get it though

[Tarc]

28. Funny, I do not see the term "RICO" in the cited article. Do you?

No. This is a Bernie supporter posting an article about Emailgate, and providing his own facts/analysis of why and how a racketeering charge could come about.

So no, there is no reality-based reporting regarding Hillary and a RICO charge. HuffPo yanked their libelous piece quickly, and if one googles for "Hillary email rico", one finds only extremist right-wing blogs discussing the possibility.

Good luck with your multifaceted approach, though it seems like none of it actually sticks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Nope, but the investigation

Is proceeding the way those classically are built

[Tarc]

31. Only in your 11th-hour, Hail Mary Bernie-will-be-the-nominee dreams

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Once again bernie has not one thing to do with this

You put party before country. For me the country comes first.

And for the record, if this indeed a RICO investigation, pay attention to who she chooses as veep. You might very well be voting for the veep

[Tarc]

44. It has everything o do with Bernie, who you still hope will be the nominee

ain't gonna happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. In your fantasies, as you like to tell people

or in your fantasies is KERRY working for Sanders? How about the Department of Justice and the Bureau? OF course they are Sanders supporters, and they are doing all this because they want to waste the people's money on a nothing... that's is the logic you are running with.

I understand that at this point you really lack the self awareness to realize how hysterical that line of thinking truly is.

As I said, the nation is far more important than your party. The time will come, and I expect you to chose wrong.

[Tarc]

47. What's hysterical is to think skirting a few SoS rules is going to result...

...in anything more than a wrist slap, and even that is a stretch.

Do go on though, I do enjoy a good popcorn-munching session.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Lack of self awareness

[Tarc]

49. Lack of understanding of how government works

[grasswire]

51. bookmarking for later nt

[Tarc]

53. KK

[BlueStateLib]

83. Those laws were writen to go after spies and traders like john walker

not a cabinet members with no criminal intent

[leveymg]

38. It would be negligence to assume that.

Where did you get that info, Tarc?

[Tarc]

46. Your question makes no sense at all

[leveymg]

69. Negligent to proclaim that the very real risk of her being found to have violated law doesn't exist

And, you are in error about that. She violated more than one felony statutes related to mishandling classified information. You either don't know the facts, or don't want us to be aware of the danger she's in. That's negligent of you.

[Tarc]

71. There is no law violation

This is a tempest in a teapot over some rules lapses, hyped by opponents (something Sanders ppl and Trump ppl have in common) for political gain.

[leveymg]

73. Negligent or simply willfully ignorant. The same thing. nt

Go tell that to the State Dept and Intelligence Community IGs, two Federal Judges, and the Director of the FBI. Just a teapot.

[Tarc]

75. Not, it's actually not, and that highlights the key factor missing inall the Emailgate whining

Intent.

[leveymg]

81. You haven't read 18 USC Sec. 793 (e) and (f), have you?

There is no specific intent to do harm to the national security requirement in(e) and the (f)(1) requirement is "extreme negligence", while (f)(2) requires no more than a showing of the mere fact that the accused failed to report someone else's mishandling of classified materials. It's all in here, if you want to understand, please see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

But, you probably won't because you don't.

[Tarc]

82. Indeed there is no requirement, but, there is a threshold of "gross negligence"

We're many, many, miles away from that.

You're 0-for-2, care to risk strike 3?

[leveymg]

84. You don't think the following is gross negligence, or worse?

"Keep 'em coming." (in response to Blumenthal who sent her TS-SAP level classified materials).
"Strip the headers and send unsecure." (order to aide when she grew frustrated at slowness of secure fax system)

I think it's actually lenient to not classify this as a conspiracy offense under 18 USC Sec. 793 (g).

[leveymg]

86. Crickets

[Tarc]

87. Nope

[charlespercydemocrat]

26. late

Too late to help omally or webb it may benfit bernie

[Blue Meany]

29. No, a RICO case will only help Republicans, I think, or perhaps Hillary's

VP. It takes a long time to put such a case together and it certainly won't be until after the Convention, probably not until after the election, if it is indeed in the works.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Shhh, this is already helping Republicans

A weak, now deeply wounded candidate...they are living it

[grasswire]

56. well, no

It is not helping them.

They desperately want to run against Hillary.

They do NOT want to run against Bernie. They know he can win. And they say so, freely.

I am monitoring RW and conservative Republican sites every day.

They will crawl over broken glass to run against HRC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Yes, but they are already attacking her

[beachbumbob]

32. Not happening...game over for sanders...

Hard to deal with reality....but we all do it eventually...Hillary is our nominee

[leveymg]

39. Presumed nominee. But only by those who have no idea of what'coming down

Or who like surprises. Surprise!

[beachbumbob]

42. Rw fantasies never pan out...

[amborin]

50. indictment or we have no rule of law

[grasswire]

55. exactly

....and I hope to God that Obama doesn't get drawn in.......even though he may deserve a slap for allowing her to go unsupervised and unchallenged.

[Skink]

52. She needs a mob lawyer.

[grasswire]

54. She prolly has a few of those as backup.

Kendall may get weary of the sludge.

[Chezboo]

63. And she's paying for Pagliano's legal expenses.

Good thing she's got all that money from her speeches.

[grasswire]

65. AND they are paying legal expenses for Justin...

....and for the other four aides.

[Chezboo]

66. WHY do you suppose that is? LOL n/t

[Arazi]

74. That's true?! What the hell?

Ya think they might be inclined to lie, er protect her much?

[cheapdate]

58. Unfortunately, it's not "plain and simple".

All public officials are also private citizens. There is an expectation or a "public trust" that they will separate their public and private identities and act in the public interest, but it's not always a clear or easy call.

Nor does the statutory language in USC 18 section 201-209 necessarily make it "plain and simple" to prove that a person with dual-employment either represented a private party in a "matter in which the United States is a party or is interested", or was compensated from a private source for "services performed within the scope of one’s federal employment."

I just doubt that it's really a "plain and simple" matter.

I don't know the minutia of the law, but how would one determine when Huma or others changed their hats, that is, when did they take off their public servant hat and put on their private citizen hat?

I do know this, corruption is exceedingly hard to prove under US law. Right or wrong, I believe that's the score.

[JoePhilly]

60. Indictment Fairy spotted!!!

Drunk and incoherent, searching for wings, and a compass.

[riversedge]

72. Yes, see post #64 just below you.

[bravenak]

64. It never ends

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. "Seems Assured"

The oxymoron at the heart of the Sanders campaign.

[randome]

76. Well put.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Betty Karlson]

85. Please let this happen BEFORE the California primary, so voters can make an informed decision.

[senz]

88. K&R -- good research, berni_mccoy. Thanks for this.