13 Crimes Hillary Clinton could be charged with

13_crimes_hillary_clinton_charged_with

Gregg Jarrett laid out 13 crimes that Hillary Clinton could be charged with on the Sean Hannity show

The list is no where near complete but it gives you an idea of types of crimes she could be charged with given what we know so far. Hillary Clinton’s crimes are actually based in evidence and facts, unlike the fake news propaganda that has been spread about Donald Trump that had ZERO evidence.



Some of the crimes Hillary Clinton could potentially be charged with are:

  • 6 Different Felony Anti-Corruption statutes.
  • 1 Racketeering, using the Clinton foundation as a criminal enterprise.
  • 4 Different Email crimes with 2 being under the Espionage act.
  • 1 Paying for the fake Russian dossier also violates the law.
  • 1 Hiding the payment for the fake Russia dossier from their disclosure agreement is another crime.
  •  

    Crooked Hillary Clinton

    Many often talk about Clinton’s crimes, it’s even popular meme. Crowds often chanted “Lock Her Up” at Trump rallies and ‘Hillary 4 Prison’ related products have sold like crazy. You can pick up one fairly cheap:

    Whatever forces that were protecting Hillary Clinton from being investigated have suddenly vanished. The amount of investigations that Hillary Clinton is currently facing is staggering. It’s almost like someone flipped a switch and ‘green lighted’ it all.

    It looks like they are sacrificing Hillary Clinton in order to protect the rest of the Obama administration. I personally don’t think it will work but we will see.

    The funny thing is, President Trump took the high rode after he won the election. He disappointed the ‘Lock Her Up’ crowd when he basically said let’s just move on.

    Yet the media and even Hillary Clinton herself just couldn’t let it go. They kept pressing all of this fake propaganda against Trump until it finally turned around to bite them.

    Watching them squirm has been very gratifying to me as well as many others I’m sure. Let’s watch and see how this all plays out as it seems there is a new ‘bombshell’ dropping daily.

    Twitter:

    3 Comments on “13 Crimes Hillary Clinton could be charged with”

    1. I don’t take pride in saying I want Hillary locked. Her crimes,though,have gone on long enough and she’s out promoting a book of lies and flaunting herself as innocent and untouchable! It’s time for Hillary to face the music and pay for her crimes.

    2. I agree with you Janie and it will come to light sooner than later.When I was living in Arkansas the things that they were saying about Killary and the Clinton’s were down right scary. They need to get to the bottom of these crimes.

    3. ec. of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. See Example( s )

      RATING
      FALSE
      ORIGIN
      In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.

      May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.

      A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

      The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.

      During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City:

      Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
      Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”:

      An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?”

      clinton-uranium
      The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

      Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

      Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

      A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

      NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
      remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
      The timing of most of the donations does not match

      Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

      Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

      His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
      The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *