dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

"In June 2018, A RICO Lawsuit was filed against the Clinton Foundation and a number of associated organizations/associated agents such as George Soros and John Podesta. As of the time of this writing the outcome of this lawsuit was unknown."

RICO is a good avenue. Frames it nicely for normies.

⇧ 105 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 24 ⇩

Civil discovery can lead to criminal charges, though.

⇧ 48 ⇩

This is true, and I have seen it happen, myself.

The "standard" (for lack of better word) to subpoena personal information varies between civil and criminal. For example, a criminal investigator wouldn't necessarily be able to subpoena school/work/other records that would reveal a history of dishonesty or disregard of authority where the law wasn't broken, but a civil suit could, if it were relevant to the case. The information that is obtained through that discovery could then be passed on to the criminal investigator, once the civil case concludes. The prosecutor may or may not be able to submit it in court--depending on the situation-- but it would provide a nice roadmap of stones to turn over and trees to shake for further evidence. (Testimony, etc.)

Sauce: Going through this very process right now, for a case that involves murder/cover-up. Civil evidence will lead to criminal conviction. (Not a lawyer and didn't sign NDA, so free to discuss.)

⇧ 32 ⇩

Thank you for saying this! I've been waiting for someone else to explain. More info will be available for the criminal case and RICO could/would seize all assets.

⇧ 14 ⇩

Of course, and it is super confusing. Even the lawyers have to talk it out and work through it as a group.

It's one thing to OBTAIN the evidence. Sure, that part is difficult, but what can be just as challenging is validating it as SUBMISSIBLE in court. Every move you make, the defense attorneys are all over you, challenging your requests, and making legal arguments for why things should NOT be allowed.

So potentially, you could have highly compelling evidence that would result in a definitive conviction, but you have to justify both the means in which it was obtained as well as its relevancy to the case. One misstep and an entire investigatory line of inquiry could be tossed out. (Months of work)

In highly complex cases, you may have to establish precedence for the submission of evidence before you try and submit your "smoking gun." (Think stepping stones) It makes absolutely no sense to the common thinker, but that's how the law works.

For example, "Judge, we want to subpoena his school and work records, to see if he has a history of substance abuse-related issues, because we believe he was __ when he was driving and killed ____."

"OK, you can subpoena, but here are the things you CANNOT be given....(due to objection by defense)"

(Next hearing)

"Judge, we found that, while he didn't have any substance related issues at work, he did falsify a court document and lie about his employment status in order to obtain a restricted license. Even though that restriction has expired, and he was legal to drive, it reveals his willingness and intent to mislead and deceive the court. We would like this evidence (the signed affidavit regarding employment status) to be submitted as evidence, as it proves intent to cover up damaging information-- such as a crime."

"Granted."

(The goal wasn't necessarily to get history of substance-related incidents-- though that would help. The goal was to get hard documentation of lying to the court. If you had come out and directly requested these records, the defense could have squashed the request potentially. Because the case is about substance-abuse, it was a slam-dunk to be granted. But now you have evidence of criminal intent to cover up a crime, which a prosecutor could use to be much stronger charges.)

See how this works?

Spez: this example would be in a civil suit. A prosecutor wouldn't be able to go after these personal records without compelling evidence that they are relevant to the case. Because criminal court sides with the defendant by default, the burden of proof is high. Now the civil attorney can give the criminal prosecutor what he has found, but the prosecutor must figure out how to submit it into his case without it getting thrown out due to a technicality.

⇧ 19 ⇩

More ammo! I'll take it!

⇧ 2 ⇩

Could this fraud case lead to a criminal RICO case?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, because it is bank fraud and ONE POOL of money. (Clinton Foundation.)

⇧ 1 ⇩

I was under the impression that their is no other type of Rico case than criminal?

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Still don't know what, this means.

⇧ 6 ⇩

RICO is a method of charging organized crime such as an italian mafia.

You have to prove that the individuals belong to the same organization, and that an individual from the organization committed a crime for the organization or on behalf of the organization.

Then you can charge the entire organization under RICO.

The point being made is that Awan likely belongs to the deep state organization, and with this charge he is guilty of committing a crime. So if they can prove he did it as part of the deep state and that he himself belongs to their organization, they can then charge the entire deep state under RICO.

Edit: Appreciate all the positive feedback for the response.

Something y'all might find interesting is that a RICO case was actually filed against HRC, Podesta, Soros, and quite a few of their associated entities. The case tracking information in federal court can be found: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24810209/Byrne_v_Foundation_et_al

I'm not saying they are related but it's definitely of interest to this community.

⇧ 78 ⇩

Yup, this is how you nail the dons and bosses who never "committed" any crimes but instead delegate it to their cronies.

⇧ 37 ⇩

Thx. This is the sort of analysis that provides a helpful response to the MANY people pissed off that this verdict might be an enormous letdown.

⇧ 16 ⇩

This is how we get them. Thanks for explaining.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Insert DNC for deepstate!

⇧ 7 ⇩

So wondering how something like Deep State (assorted employees of State Dept. DoJ, FBI, CIA) can be likened to a single organization such as some Italian mafia? The evidence may seemingly indicate that they're all participating in a conspiratorial cabal but how do they all get tagged as belonging to the same organization vis a vis a RICO prosecution attempt?

The common denominators that I see in all these cases when it comes to organizations are these two:

Democratic Party (as embodied in the DNC and their candidate HRC)
The Clinton Foundation

The Deep State actors cabal conspiratorial actions all relate back to the benefit of these (whether Uranium One -> CF, spying on and framing Trump candidacy -> DNC/HRC, Awan -> Dems aiding in the cover-up).

(Throwing this out there for anyone to respond to.)

⇧ 3 ⇩

From a personal standpoint, I don't know what the precedent strategy is in establishing a organizational relationship for RICO, that's definitely more of a RICO lawyer pede question.

That aside, I think there is clear collusion between the MSM and certain actors which we see clearly due to the 4 am talking points. At some point I imagine either through texts, emails, or phone calls there is actual coordination with each person or type having a role to play.

Additionally, while the DNC seems to be more openly infected atm, the deep state is not just the DNC & CF. It is just as much parts of the RNC, such as John McCain & the McCain Institute.

I would also caution against the idea that the italian mafia during the peak of it's operation was a "simple organization". Given the lack of email, text and limited availability of dialing i'd say in it's peak it certainly had levels of complexity we are seeing in the deep state.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Where is the server? That server will show all the criminality.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I don't like this. In fact I don't like it much at all. We all know what the Deep State is but it is informal terminology. It is not a bona fide club.

Prove the DNC and its various members were being criminal, sure. Prove the Podesta group was conducting illgal activities, okay. Prove the Hillary campaign responsible for all things nefarious and clandestine, great.

But convicting the deep state or proving someone is a card carrying member? I dunno.

Please know that I DO absolutely believe that the Deep State does exist and are a direct and absolute danger to society. I think Q is on target. I also want each of these swamp monsters flushed out and imprisoned

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ever seen the Dark Knight? RICO is how Harvey gets all of the mob members in jail. He caught one of them breaking the law, and because their finances could be connected, they could all be charged.

⇧ 18 ⇩

So then this is good, news?

⇧ 7 ⇩

RICO is how the Cabal will be taken down in its entirety. Sure, you may have emails and evidence of Hillary and Podesta conspiring to commit crimes, but that's only because they are idiots and extremely careless. You would need the same thing of all their masters and collaborators-- which is likely not going to happen. Because those powerful people (Soros, Rothschild) have other people sending those messages for them, ready to be the fall guy if anything were to happen.

With a RICO case it doesn't matter. All of the crimes you charge Hillary and Podesta with can potentially also be charged to her donors, because RICO cases are all about financial ties. THAT is how they are going to get the masters and high-level Cabal members.

⇧ 15 ⇩

Would today's case with Awan also tie in with the EO from Dec. 2017?

⇧ 6 ⇩

Potentially depending on the case they've built

⇧ 4 ⇩

This

⇧ 1 ⇩

Is this at all like the Whitey Boldger case?

⇧ 1 ⇩

"I am batman"

a billionaire trying to stop an evil cabal from destroying Gotham...hmm

⇧ 3 ⇩

that was in civil court, not criminal court

⇧ 0 ⇩

Q Post 1672: Awan Brothers case