Hillary and Bill Clinton & the Clinton Foundation
(Article Dated Jan 2013)Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
The Daily Caller reported that Tony Podesta was proactively lobbying for cancellation of a range of anti-Russian sanctions against the banking sector. In particular, he represented interests of Sberbank and was paid $170,000 for his efforts over a six-month period last year to seek to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country. Podesta, founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, is listed as a key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The fake news story is the collusion between the Trump campaign and Trump himself with the Russians/Putin to win the election.So we have several questions to ask here:
How much cash did the Russians donate to the Trump campaign? Which voting software switched the vote from Clinton to Trump? Even if the Russians hacked the Podesta/Clinton devices did it affect the outcome of the election? And that’s a big IF since Hillary Clinton and John Podesta left their own devices open themselves;thus making them vulnerable to hacking not ONLY by the Russians but by any actor, foreign OR DOMESTIC.
What did Trump or the Trump campaign have to do with THEIR lawlessness/carelessness? NOTHING. We also learned of the MEDIA/CLINTON collusion through Wikileaks. Now that is a story we have to look at in the near future.
The media keeps saying collusion. They can say collusion all day long but nobody has charged Trump with anything for one good reason;there isn’t a shred of proof.
With Obama in charge of the White House and access to security briefings of the highest order there is no way on earth there could be collusion between Trump and the Russians without Obama being aware of it. The proof would have come out ages ago.He would have used it to deep six the Trump campaign right off the bat.To date NOBODY in the media has backed up anything they’ve said. All they do is insinuate so as to cast doubt.
Remarkable how they don’t see the Clinton/Podesta collusion as collusion. We’ll talk about the Obama/Russian collusion in the next News for the News coverage.
The big story this week was the President firing the director of the FBI,James Comey.
Let’s spell it out for the media.They don’t seem to get it.
- President Trump said if the Dept Attorney General had not recommended terminating the tenure of James Comey he would have done it anyway.The media called this a contradiction with the narrative that it was Rosenstein’s recommendation that prompted the firing. Can we chew gum and walk at the same time? President Trump was considering the termination for some time. The recommendation from the DOJ was the nail in the coffin.The recommendation gave the President the impetus to go ahead and do what he had been considering anyway. Let’s suppose the DOJ had not given the President their recommendation.It was helpful but not necessary. This is not complicated. It’s the way we think.We consider what we’re going to do before we actually do it. We take into account all kinds of factors when we make any decision. Besides,does it really matter? Nope.
- The President has the authority to let the Director go just as he had the authority to let Sally Yates go. It’s nothing new under the sun. When a new administration takes over they generally DO let the holdovers go.
- The media(and Democrats)know there’s nothing unusual here so they’re now claiming the timing is suspect because the President is under investigation.NEWSFLASH: no he’s not. Michael Flynn is under investigation but we’ve known that for months.
- Nixon did NOT fire the FBI director. He ordered the firing of the independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox.HUGE difference.The big deal was that the attorney general was the only one who had the authority to fire Cox. Nixon attempted to use an authority he did not have.President Trump used an authority he clearly did have;the only one who can fire the Director of the FBI IS the President. The attorney general, in the case of Cox ,agreed he would only let Cox go if there were just cause. I’m not going to get into the whole Nixon scenario;there’s no reason to.The bottom line is that we’re talking about 2 TOTALLY different situations. There is no similarity.NONE
The media is making hay of HOW Trump fired Comey. Sorry people.Nothing to see here.
WASHINGTON – Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice has been named by multiple sources as the Obama administation official who “unmasked” Trump campaign or transition team officials who were caught up in surveillance of other targets.The development has rocked Washington, as critics say it could be evidence that the outgoing administration used its foreign surveillance powers to spy on the incoming White House team.
The law that allows the federal intelligence community to spy on foreign actors, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has safeguards in place that are designed to protect Americans who are “incidentally” recorded. One protection is that they must be “masked.”
Ok. Where’s the news coverage of the Obama/Rice story?We need a whole blog entry devoted SOLELY to the unmasking/spying story.Unlike the fake ‘Trump colluded with Russia’ story(intended solely to delegitimize the President)we have a HUGE story here. Serious business.