FBI Director Expected to Bring RICO Charges Against Clinton to Avoid Being Charged Himself By a Trump Administration

ELDER PATRIOT – FBI Director James Comey had a come to Jesus moment as he watched the polls beginning to favor Donald Trump.  Comey had figured everything would pass after Hillary Clinton was elected president.  That all changed when Wikileaks did the work he refused to let his crack staff of cyber experts do and voters began breaking for Donald Trump in a major way.

There is more than enough evidence to not only bring a case against Hillary Clinton for major violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

Andrew McCarthy of National Review spelled out the case against Mrs. Clinton most convincingly this morning:

Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.


Under RICO, an “enterprise” can be any association of people, informal or formal, illegitimate or legitimate — it could be a Mafia family, an ostensibly charitable foundation, or a department of government. It is a racketeering enterprise if its affairs are conducted through “a pattern of racketeering activity.” A “pattern” means merely two or more violations of federal or state law; these violations constitute “racketeering activity” if they are included among the extensive list of felonies laid out in the statute. Significantly for present purposes, the listed felonies include bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice. Fraud encompasses both schemes to raise money on misleading pretexts (e.g., a charitable foundation that camouflages illegal political payoffs) and schemes to deprive Americans of their right to the honest services of a public official (e.g., quid pro quo arrangements in which official acts are performed in exchange for money). Both fraud and obstruction can be proved by false statements — whether they are public proclamations (e.g., “I turned over all work-related e-mails to the State Department”) or lies to government officials (e.g., concealing “charitable” donations from foreign sources after promising to disclose them, or claiming not to know that the “(C)” symbol in a government document means it is classified at the confidential level).

The WikiLeaks disclosures of e-mails hacked from Clinton presidential-campaign chairman John Podesta provide mounting confirmation that the Clinton Foundation was orchestrated for the purpose of enriching the Clintons personally and leveraging then-Secretary Clinton’s power to do it. Hillary and her underlings pulled this off by making access to her contingent on Clinton Foundation ties; by having top staff service Clinton Foundation donors and work on Clinton Foundation business; by systematically conducting her e-mail communications outside the government server system; by making false statements to the public, the White House, Congress, the courts, and the FBI; and by destroying thousands of e-mails — despite congressional inquiries and Freedom of Information Act demands — in order to cover up (among other things) the shocking interplay between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Under federal law, that can amount to running an enterprise by a pattern of fraud, bribery, and obstruction. If so, it is a major crime. Like the major crimes involving the mishandling of classified information and destruction of government files, it cries out for a thorough and credible criminal investigation. More important, wholly apart from whether there is sufficient evidence for criminal convictions, there is overwhelming evidence of a major breach of trust that renders Mrs. Clinton unfit for any public office, let along the nation’s highest public office.

All of this left Comey complicit in the scheme by having violated the public trust for having refusing to push the investigation to its conclusion.  Comey was aware of his liability in this regard but late last week when the potential for Donald Trump becoming president became likely, one of the agents he was closest to sat him down and laid his cards on the table. 

The trusted agent told the director that there are at least 100 agents who were convinced Mrs. Clinton was unfit for high office and that she should be stripped of her security clearance.  He also told him that these agents would be willing to work with a Trump administration to implicate Comey in the Clintons’ RICO scheme if he didn’t do the right thing before the election.

That’s when they came up with the Weiner – Abedin – Clinton angle to justify reopening the investigation.

Finally, game on!