[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: A New Clinton Email Emerges In Which Clinton Camp Brags About Killing An Unflattering Story On Uranium One. Of course, this is not surprising to learn that the Clintons were proud of killing an unflattering story on them. This is just one of many, but it is very relevant in today’s news. Before, we begin on unflattering emails, I want to present the following Wikileaks emails and the story on the Uranium One deal with Russia: Hillary sold 20% of America’s uranium to Russia as SoS, Clinton camp worried that the deal is being investigated.? wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/286 wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225 “It’s out there.”? This isn’t a smoking gun leak (since the Grassley letter was posted publicly) but it shows the Clinton campaign’s nervousness about this incredibly damning story being investigated. ‘Uranium One’ explanation: As Secretary of State, Hillary approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to the Russian state- owned firm ‘Uranium One’, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. She literally sold off a rare and prime material used in nukes to a country we are at odds with for cold hard cash. John Podesta also has ties to Russia exposed through the WikiLeaks, owning 75,000 shares in a Putin-backed energy company. In the following email number: wikileaks.org/podesta- emails/emailid/303 You can read for yourself how the Clinton campaign “killed a Bloomberg story” attempting to link Clinton’s opposition to the anti-Russia legislation known as the Magnitsky Act to a speech that Bill Clinton delivered in Moscow for $500,000. “With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill to a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow.” Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. We discover that Hillary Clinton fought against the Magnitsky Act, which I believe gave Russia exactly what it deserved. Wealthy Russians who had participated in the imprisonment and death of Magnitsky, who was a lawyer trying to do his job, were banned from the United States. This infuriated Russia, so during the Uranium Deal, Hillary worked against the Act. “The administration, starting with Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry, did everything they could do to stop the Magnitsky act,” said American hedge fund manager Bill Browder, who was instrumental in lobbying Congress in favor of the bill. In a piece titled, “Hillary Clinton forgets her part in a disastrous Russia policy,” Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin referred to Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, asking, “Why did the State Department try to block the Magnitsky Act for so long?” On June 20, 2012, Clinton wrote an oped in the Wall Street Journal titled “Trade With Russia Is a Win-Win,” in which she sought to explain that retaining Jackson-Vanik “only fuels more anti-American sentiment in Russia.” “Russia’s membership in the WTO (World Trade Organization) will soon be a fact of life,” she stated. “Failing to extend permanent normal trading relations will not penalize Russia, nor will it provide a lever with which to change Moscow’s behavior.” In the oped, Clinton referred to Magnitsky’s death and wrote, “We are continuing to work with Congress on addressing these issues.” Despite the questions raised about Clinton’s initial opposition to the Magnitsky Act, her actions to ease trade restrictions on Russia, and her husband’s ties to entities close to the Uranium One deal, former Clinton Campaign Press Secretary Brian Fallon took to CNN on Tuesday to accuse President Trump of enacting foreign policy toward Russia that may be “part of a quid pro quo based on help that was provided during the campaign.” No evidence has emerged of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Magnitsky legislation, meanwhile, has been in the news cycle over the past few days in regard to the story about Trump Jr. and his meeting with a Russian lawyer. The issue emerged on Saturday when the New York Times published an exclusive story citing “confidential government records described to the New York Times” alleging that Trump Jr. arranged a meeting at Trump Tower two weeks after Trump secured the Republican nomination with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian attorney who, the newspaper claimed, “has connections to the Kremlin.” The Times subsequently published what it says are the contents of correspondence indicating that the meeting with Veselnitskaya was set up by third parties who claimed that Veselnitskaya had dirt on Clinton. It would not be abnormal for a political campaign to take a meeting with an individual claiming to have compromising information on an opponent. Instead of providing dirt on Clinton, Trump Jr. said that Veselnitskaya used the time to complain about the Magnitsky Act. “The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a government official,” Trump Jr. said in a statement on Tuesday. “And as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky Act. As all hell breaks out about Trump again, in fact, the above facts on Clinton prove her connection to Russia, and you can see she has tried to cover her tracks. However, she has not been able to accomplish this. Clinton and Veselnitskaya have both worked to get rid of a human rights Act, which must be preserved at all cost. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||