See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Who’s in Putin’s Pocket — Clinton or Trump?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew ... utin-s-pocket-clinton-or-trump
Published: Oct 23, 2016
Author: Written by William F. Jasper
Post Date: 2016-10-23 15:00:56 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: None
Views: 1805
Comments: 2
While serving as secretary of state to President Obama, Hillary Clinton delivered one fifth of America’s uranium deposits to Russia. So charge investigators who have been delving into the murky — and very alarming — dealings of Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation with a company known as Uranium One, and various “private” Russian companies and official Russian agencies. Moreover, her critics accuse Hillary and Bill Clinton of raking in a huge fortune (over $130 million) from the American, Canadian, and Russian investors who helped arrange for these Russian companies — under the control, ultimately, of Vladimir Putin — to take control of 20 percent of our strategic uranium assets. Indeed, according to some calculations, the Uranium One deal, involving top Clinton donors Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer, has transferred as much as 50 percent of projected American uranium production to Kremlin control. This incredible story, with enormously important implications for our nation’s security, has been percolating for over a year, since Peter Schweizer’s bestselling exposé Clinton Cash — The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, brought it to light. (See also here, here, here, and here.) jQuery(document).ready(function($) { $("#videoads").delay(10000).fadeOut("slow"); }); Why does the explosive Clinton-Uranium One story — which has been buried (naturally) by the pro-Hillary establishment media for the past year — now take on new meaning and urgency? Well, for one thing, for the past several days Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has been trying to make hay with the charge that recent comments by her Republican rival, Donald Trump, show “a very troubling willingness” to support Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an interview with Fox News Sunday on July 31, Clinton reiterated the narrative that her campaign and her media allies had been flogging since the Democratic National Convention the previous week: that Trump’s off-the-cuff comments about her e-mail scandal amounted to Trump calling on a foreign adversary (Putin and Russia’s intel agencies) to meddle in a U.S. election and engage in cyberespionage against this country. Russia’s alleged hacking of her e-mail accounts, she said, "raises serious issues about Russian influence in our election." "And for Mr. Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election, I think, raises national security issues," she charged. In the interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace, Clinton charged that Trump’s remarks on this issue show he is not “temperamentally fit” to be president. "If you take the encouragement that Russians hack into email accounts, if you take his quite excessive praise for Putin, his absolute allegiance to a lot of Russian wish-list foreign policy issues," she said, it suggests that "he is not temperamentally fit to be president and commander-in-chief." Is that not rich? Hillary and Bill take massive bribes from Putin cronies to transfer ownership and control over the fuel for our nation’s nuclear power plants (which provide one fifth of our national electrical energy) and our nuclear weapons to Putin & Company — and then accuse her opponent of being in bed with Putin! Like the brazen thief who makes his getaway by pointing at a random passerby and yelling “Stop! Thief!,” Hillary is hoping to distract the American electorate from her own corruption, criminality, and treason by accusing her opponent of the very thing of which she herself is most guilty. That is hardly surprising considering the crime wave that has followed Team Clinton all the way from the governor’s mansion in Little Rock to the White House, to the Senate, to the Clinton Foundation, and on to Foggy Bottom — and beyond. Remember the Clintons and Whitewatergate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fostergate, Travelgate, Troopergate, Lincoln Bedroomgate, Bimbogate, Pardongate, Wacogate, etc., etc., ad nauseum? The Clintons’ penchant for criminality virtually saturated our political vocabulary with new “gate”-suffixed scandals. However, with the help of their “mainstream media” JournoLista friends, the Clintons have always managed to escape justice in this temporal sphere. For the past 15 months or so, these same media pals have shielded Hillary from having to face hard questions about her central role in the uranium-for-cash deal with Putin’s minions. However, that could still be forced to the surface as a major stumbling block before the elections. But wait — the Uranium One deal, as important and stunningly corrupt as it may be, is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. As we have been reporting here for years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been one of Putin’s biggest enablers, facilitating enormous transfers of advanced technology to the Russian regime she now sees as a threat. It was Secretary Clinton, please recall, who, in May 2009, presented Putin’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red “reset” button, and then mugged with Lavrov in a giggly photo-fest celebrating the U.S.-Russian “convergence” agenda. Clinton and Lavrov then served as joint coordinators of the U.S.-Russian Bilateral Presidential Commission established in July of that year by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The annual reports of the Bilateral Presidential Commission are replete with chummy photos of Clinton-Lavrov, Obama-Medvedev, Biden-Putin, etc., as well as details of the many deals worked out to give technology, knowhow, capital, and other resources to Moscow. Among the many important projects of this type promoted by the Clinton-Lavrov team is the huge Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, which we warned about repeatedly in The New American as far back as 2010 (see, for instance, "’Breathing Pixie Dust’ Investing in Russia,” August 5, 2010). Putin’s new Skolkovo research and innovation center on the outskirts of Moscow, heralded as “Russia’s Silicon Valley,” is benefiting from billions of dollars of investment and prime technology from Cisco Systems, Boeing, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, General Electric, and other U.S. tech giants, thanks to support and promotion by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Then there is the case of billionaire Russian playboy Mikhail Prokhorov (see here and here), who, during Clinton’s reign at State, was allowed not only to buy up the New Jersey Nets (now the Brooklyn Nets) NBA franchise and the Barclays Center in New York City, but also to play a major role through his control of the Russian investment companies ONEXIM Group and Renaissance Capital, both of which played key roles in the Clintons’ aforementioned Uranium One scandal. Yes, Mr. Trump has made statements that may give security-conscious Americans cause for concern, but deeds speak louder than words. And Hillary Clinton’s deeds speak in 5,000 decibel thunderclaps, declaring to all (except her willfully deaf devotees) that she belongs not sitting behind the president’s desk in the White House, but serving time behind bars in the Big House.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
In an age when corruption and scandal have become so endemic in the body politic that many citizens are left either jaded or numb, it is difficult to identify a case of corruption which is so heinous that members of the general public are shocked back into a sense of awareness. The revelations of whistleblowers and tell-all books have a hard time competing for the attentions of an ambivalent audience. And when the scandals touch upon the interest of one of the self-proclaimed American dynasties such as the Kennedys, Bushes, or Clintons, the revelations may briefly titillate, but they rarely reshape the attitudes of political partisans who have long since made up their minds regarding the respective dynasties. When it comes to generating scandals, the Clinton family often appears to be the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine: All that seems to have changed since the days when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas is that the scale of the scandals has expanded to proportions that might once have seemed inconceivable. Thus, as the next presidential election cycle begins to ramp up, Hillary Clinton has endeavored to dismiss any and all of the questions about her record as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state as "much ado about nothing." From the tragedy of Benghazi to the legal wrangling over her private e-mail server, Clinton has continued to act as if responding to critics is beneath her dignity. It is a dismissive strategy that has worked — until now. Clinton Cash — The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, a new book by Peter Schweizer, has punched through the teflon armor of Bill and Hillary Clinton and has stirred up the hornets’ nest of their flacks and sycophants. Schweizer is hardly a stranger to the howls of outrage which members of the political class make when someone slams the till closed on their thieving fingers: Several of his previous books (including Extortion, Architects of Ruin, and Throw Them All Out) have earned him a number of powerful enemies inside the Beltway among the ranks of both Democrats and Republicans. However, Clinton Cash exposes a scandal that threatens to overshadow everything that Schweizer has previously documented, and the author clearly understands that Clinton flacks will endeavor to dismiss his work as a partisan attack: Given my previous focus on bipartisan self-dealing and corruption, why am I now focused on one couple? Do I simply have it in for Bill and Hillary? Am I somehow trying to derail her prospects of being elected president in 2016? The answer is pretty straightforward: the global dealings of this political couple deserve bipartisan citizen attention as much as congressional insider trading or campaign contribution extortion did. No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.... To put an even finer point on it: I am focusing specifically on financial transactions involving foreign businesses, investors, and governments. Foreign interests can’t donate to political campaigns. But they can pay money for speeches. And they can donate to the Clinton Foundation. In Schweizer’s analysis, the Clinton Foundation that the former president and first lady established after Bill Clinton left office is at the heart of a very strange meeting point of charity, politics, and personal aggrandizement. In Schweizer’s words: The Clinton Foundation is not your traditional charity. A traditional charity doesn’t have a globe-trotting ex-president, an ex-secretary of state, and their daughter running the show. But for all the benefits that derive from such star power, the real problem is delineating where the Clinton political machine and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins. The 11 chapters of Clinton Cash offer a summary of a record which is at some times infuriating and also galling. Schweizer’s extensive documentation of the Clintons’ involvement in the destabilization of the balance of nuclear power in the world takes front and center in the book. Thus, for example, Schweizer documents the questionable infusion of cash into the Clinton Foundation from Canadian mining interests that wanted to invest in uranium assets in Kazakhstan. At the same time, according to Schweizer, the Clintons facilitated deals that gave Putin-controlled Russian interests control over a substantial portion of American uranium production: The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Strangely enough, when Uranium One requested approval from CFIUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold. From Kazakhstan, to India, to Haiti, to the Congo, and numerous other corners of the world, a pattern emerges, wherein wealthy, powerful interests suddenly find support for their dubious adventures through a strange coincidence of lucrative speaking engagements for a former president while his wife oversaw much of American foreign policy from the corridors of power in the U.S. State Department. The compounding of supposed coincidences emerging from a constellation of “charitable, political, and financial interests” is referred to as the “Clinton Blur” by Schweizer. Roughly a quarter of Schweizer’s book is devoted to documenting his charges through extensive notes. However, as in his previous books, the author’s style is engaging and accessible, allowing the reader to follow the line of reasoning with relative ease, despite the complexity of the scandals that he dissects. Reading Clinton Cash, one may very well ask, “Why haven’t I heard about this before now?” The truth is that raising questions about the Clintons has a way of becoming a very self-destructive activity: Once Clinton operatives begin to target a critic, intimidation and denigration of the critic may become the order of the day. Schweizer has certainly become the focus of such criticism. Even Bill Clinton deigned to enter the fray, and declared concerning Schweizer: “Even the guy that wrote the book apparently had to admit under questioning that, ‘We didn’t have a shred of evidence for this, we just sort of thought we would throw it out there and see if it flies.’ And it won’t fly.” The 60 pages of footnotes at the end of Clinton Cash makes one wonder how the former president defines “evidence.” However, when a man has a hard time defining “is,” one must presume that much of the dictionary is open to redefinition, as well. Schweizer makes it clear throughout Clinton Cash that his purpose is to fulfill the journalist’s responsibility of documenting the chain of "coincidences" that have led to a great deal of wealth and power for the Clintons. In the assessment of this reviewer, the evidence that he has amassed calls out for an official investigation by those authorities charge with the responsibility to act in cases of influence peddling. Whether such an investigation will ever take place, only time can tell. However, Schweizer has directed a spotlight on some of the darkest corners of America’s shadiest first family, and the scandal that has erupted into the light of day with the publication of Clinton Cash is likely to reverberate for quite some time to come. U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
The Greatest Risk Possibility would be if EVERYONE but we the people is in on it.
"Clinton Cash" Punches Through Bill and Hillary's Teflon Armor
#2. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#1)
"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest