Hillary Clinton should be never again allowed to hold public office.
ADDED: A list of other sources cataloging the Clintons pattern of abuse and outright theft.
- The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.
- The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.
- The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”
- And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”
71 comments:
Imagine, these revelations were attached to anyone not a Clinton.
Imagine if Mitt Romney had done this! The media would have skinned him alive.
Hee hee. Joke is on Putin, and the Clintons know it.
No one will need uranium in a few years. How could anyone fall for that old "Rip Van Winkle Caper" nowadays?
Hillary also said that she was going to "Topple" the top 1%.
Now it is understandable that she would use this imagery. In her mind the conservative parties worship the top 1% so she wants to topple them just the way the statue of hero Lenin was toppled during the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Clinton's have no shame. They've gotten away with every shady thing they've ever tried.
The big question is this: will the MSM reach a point where this behavior is unacceptable to even to them?
AllenS said...
The big question is this: will the MSM reach a point where this behavior is unacceptable to even to them?
Cynically, no. To the MSM, we could facing down a nuclear challenge and the most important thing would still be the "civil rights struggles."
The only problem they would have is if the Russians refused to make "yellowcake" for a same sex wedding.
Even while the media tepidly go after the Clintons - they still insist it's a done deal.
See Drudge front page link to Jonathan Chait (ugh)
Look at his headline about a "Post presidency".
It's a done deal America. You're stuck with a corrupt greedy figurehead and there's nothing you can do about it.
America - your choice for your next dictator is already done.
FU Chait.
Let's hang her first, then she can be president.
Do the Clinton's have ethical problems? Just ask Monica's cigar.
This is too complicated for many people who are considering to vote for Hillary. We need photos of her going down on Huma. Carpet munching evidence, not unethical/treasonous business dealings, are what is needed. None of us would ever vote for her. You must think like the voter on the fence.
I thought there was a corn fast underway?
Did he say that stories that don't fit on bumper stickers can be explosive?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it wasn't FOXNEWS that uncovered the story, then.
Borat's been working on this story for quite some time. It's nice to see his efforts to learn American newsreporting finally pay off.
Welcome to the post-Citizens United world, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Expect much, much more of this in the future. It will undoubtedly become the norm.
Thanks for the ruling, SCOTUS!
As if this news wasn't bad enough, the Senate today confirmed some bitch who apparently believes that we need to get back to full scale war on drugs/states' medical marijuana dispensaries mode. Yep, that's really what our country needs right now.
It's idiotic to blame Clinton corruption on citizens united.
I don't blame it on Citizens United. I just think the ruling will make it much harder to track deals like this and prove corruption, generally. And now there will be partisan hypocrisy defenses. Luckily, (thanks to left-wing integrity - ha!) most lefty commenters at NYT sound as dismayed with Clinton over this as Congressional Republicans were over Nixon. But I'm afraid that with much worse corruption now being made entirely legalized, issues like this, which are totally legal, will lose their value as morally bad political examples.
And that's why it will blow over in a few months. In the past, it might not have done so. CU has forever changed the political culture, whether you wanted it to, or not.
MSM will let this story die.
The Philly Inquirer has ignored it so far while today on Page A5 they ran a story above the fold about the Clinton's new grandaughter.
I mean, think of the uproar raised over Iran-Contra.
If Reagan were alive and presiding over America today, and the sales left over from those arms purchases, after going to the Contras, went to a foundation owned by Reagan, then that would be analogous to the issue reported.
CU brings corruption to a whole new level of inventiveness. I'm not saying that in the past Clinton wouldn't have stooped to something like this. But I am saying that the money free-for-all makes things like this harder and harder to care about prosecuting effectively in the court of public opinion. Credit's due to all the media doing their job correctly. But as I said, it will not ruin her candidacy the way something like this might have in the past.
Our courts have made a decision to elevate the burden for proving corruption, let alone illegal corruption (which again, this is NOT) to a now insurmountable threshold. And the public's ability to care about it has dropped accordingly. Nothing shocks us any longer.
MSM will let this story die.
Read my comments.
The "MSM" (including FOX?) can't make anyone care about this any more than they already don't. They do, but in the same way they care who wins on Dancing with the Stars or some such. Our courts have made the tracking of money to pols a very thankless and almost impossible task. Since money, according to them, is "speech", shunting those dollars around is really not much more of a deal than exchanging some words with a Russian guy. It's like editing letters between Clinton and Guista. An apostrophe here, a comma there. Rephrase the wording at the end. Just speech.
Or as SCOTUS said, just money. Nothing to worry about. Payoffs are all good.
Remember, tis is what you guys wanted. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Well, I'm shocked, Montana. The brazenness of it all is astounding.
Mrs. Clinton, I am sure, thinks that it's great to get this out so early in her campaign. She knew this was coming, hell, she undoubtedly had the NYT rough drafts a week before she threw her bonnet in the ring. It will blow over, at which time she can utter her famous response to awkward questions, and until then can mutter "this too shall pass".
One doesn't need to invoke CU as Clintin's escape clause.
Ritmo, ole buddy, there's one, and only one, connection between the foundation fiasco and Citizens United.
Media still, to this day, have not asked her a single tough question.
They just bask in her corrupt glory.
Shorter Ritmo:
Citizens United did it!
OTOneH, she could point to CU and say that made everything she did legal.
OTotherH, that she did this as Sec State puts her in the position of selling her office to the Russians. That won't go away very fast.
But who gives a damn about that anymore? Today they awarded probation to a guy for selling out his office to his fuck-wench, who would be before a firing squad in more just times.
Despite all the blather and obfuscation from Clinton loyalists, not one of them has gone on record as stating in clear, unambiguous terms that the uranium deal is legal, ethical, moral, and does not harm American interests.
One doesn't need to invoke CU as Clintin's escape clause.
It's not Clinton's escape clause.
It's the public's willingness to not care escape clause.
See the difference?
Believe it or not, the way money and politics intersect is no less influential on the culture than the way politics and speech intersect.
In that respect, the SCOTUS understood what it was saying.
Uh, you need laws to make something illegal, Teddy.
(I just watched The Roosevelts and am referring on your ruggedly outdoorsy good looks and resemblance to T.R.!) ;-)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure either the NYT or its commenters noted no illegality, and perhaps even FOX did the same.
If not, a broken law has to be identified, not speculated on.
Even if there was some law, the burden of proving it being broken is too high a bar for you to get your hopes up on this one.
With CU, it's almost like SCOTUS was saying that they expect politicians to be corrupt in the donations department. They assume it's up to us to track and care about this stuff, now.
I assure you that the people won't. Not for long. And the ease with which it can be done, not only done with impunity, is much greater now.
Good luck on convincing Americans about "ethical, moral" and other high-minded stuff. The laws beforehand existed because we knew politicians couldn't be trusted to abide by some willingness to be incorruptible to cash.
Except for a token few, we know that they're anything but.
This is the "police-your-own-government" (without the help of sensible legal traditions) brought to us by SCOTUS.
Such excuse making. The uranium deal must be big, big trouble for Ovary Clinton.
The excuse making... endless excuse making.
Doesn't it get exhausting?
Clinton fatigue is real.
Wants the difference between a donation and a bribe?
The Clintons know.
As usual, you're only listening to your side. I find it to be a big deal personally, but I'm not convinced that she won't overcome it politically. But then, maybe you listen to a more diverse array of viewpoints and perspectives on these things - NOT.
The Clinton Foundation has some IRS issues, it appears.
"For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.
Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period..."
Well, let's just pick a Supreme Court decision we don't like, and blame that for the Clintons' problems. How about Kelo this time?
The excuse making... endless excuse making.
Doesn't it get exhausting?
You know, Antonin Scalia is known to hire talented clerks of very different political persuasion than his. You know why? So he can hear out the strongest arguments contrary to his own. Some believe this is what makes him a more effective judicial advocate for beliefs as extreme as his than any other.
You are proving that you feel that to be a bad approach. Listening to the reverberations in your echo box makes you want to declare premature victory. But election season is still early and corruption is everywhere these days. I'm not calling it until the fat lady sings. Not the fat man.
Clinton fatigue is real.
Yep, that's true. So is mediocrity fatigue.
The Republicans have managed to enter yet another election cycle without any candidate possessing a personality. That's a problem for them.
I see Mike's still enamored of his kitchen sink approach.
That worked really well in the nineties.
If only just hating the Clintons most vehemently and accusing them of triviality upon triviality were the trick.
You guys should have learned your lesson when the American people didn't care about his blow jobs.
Hate and obsession alone won't cut it. That's just not the way these things work.
But hey - if you need to declare victory now, I say go for it. That worked out pretty well for W. in Iraq.
Just visualize victory. In a very zen-like way. Minus the enlightenment, though. Replace that with hate and obsession. Eventually the non-obsessed, non-haters will get it. Right?
If not, just call them names. Or shoot the messenger.
If nothing else, it should feel satisfying.
Look at it this way - Reagan did almost the same thing - minus a foundation, and you still feel he was one of the top five presidents.
Count your chickens before they hatch if you must, but I've seen stranger things happen.
Sometimes I miss Titus stopping by to talk about pinching a loaf. That was comparatively interesting, ya know?
I know, Mike. It gave you a chance to listen to (if not talk about) things you actually knew something about. ;-)
Eh, good night. I can't compete with poop. ;-)
Thanks for posting the story.
If you want to stand by your corruption queen - you do that balls.
The New York Times (building on reporting in the forthcoming book ‘Clinton Cash’) revealed the sordid web of cash and coziness wherein the Clintons and their foundation found themselves much richer, and the Russian government found itself in possession of a very large percentage of American uranium capacity. Reuters blew the whistle on Clinton organizations’ — shall we say — incomplete tax filings dating back years, which failed to report tens of millions in overseas cash, including from foreign governments. These “mistakes”, evidently unnoticed by the Clintons’ bookkeepers and the savvy professionals at the IRS, are prompting Clintonworld to re-file at least five years’ worth of returns:
as seen on twitter:
Shorter Clinton Campaign:
"All of this smoke is not caused by a fire."
&
Guy Benson
From the Times article:
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. At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
Close your eyes, dear bad faith believers. You can still vote for her.
"The Clinton camp flat-out denied that a key meeting held at the couple’s private home had ever occurred…until they were confronted by photo evidence from a New York Times reporter, at which point they were forced to admit that the nonexistent meeting actually did happen after all. This is called “lying.” And Exhibit C is the ever-present fact that Hillary Clinton flouted every rule in the book by setting up a secret, private email server in her basement, on which she conducted all official business at State. When people started sniffing around, Hillary’s lawyers examined the emails without any oversight (later shifting their story about how they culled “personal” missives from public documents), and deleted more than 30,000 of them. Before wiping the server clean, of course. It is not unreasonable to infer that perhaps some of the concrete evidence of quid pro quo corruption Clinton loyalists are demanding doesn’t exist anymore because Clinton loyalists actively destroyed said evidence. Between the smell test, the facts laid out by several news outlets, the lack of required disclosures of foreign donations, the very shady tax “errors,” the Chappaqua meeting lie, and Hillary’s eradicated paper trail, the Clintons have not earned the benefit of the doubt on any of this. Quite the opposite. I’ll leave you with the Clinton machine desperately slinging mud until enough time has passed to allow them to declare all of this “old news” again..."
Linky
I'm going to repeat this:
The Clinton camp flat-out denied that a key meeting held at the couple’s private home had ever occurred... until they were confronted by photo evidence from a New York Times reporter, at which point they were forced to admit that the nonexistent meeting actually did happen after all. This is called “lying.”
She's a fucking LIAR.
April, it's all Scalia's fault.
Yes - Scalia is to blame. Reagan too.
The left are ace at twisting reality into a pretzel.
Yes. A Clinton sycophant on Megyn Kelly's show this evening had one answer:
BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH
Look at her 2 front teeth.
http://drudgereport.com/
Those are the teeth of a creepy sociopath.
The left are falling apart over her.
It's comical.
It's Reagan Bush Scalia Iran-Contra and Citizens United fault.
They made her lie.
They are alternately falling apart and propping her up. Since the coronation committee would not allow another Dem to get into the primaries, there is no other candidate prepared (or qualified) to step up.
Plus, if she was forced out, then what? She'd be angry, wealthy, and inclined to throw her weight around.
Here is a link to an excellent bullet-point summary of the uranium deal and the Clintons' roles in it.
Note that there is no mention of the CU decision handed down by the SCOTUS in this summary. That's just a MMFA-inspired bit of wishful diversion. It also landed with a THUD! on another blog where it was tried out on a generally liberal audience.
Even Lawrence O’Donnell, a Democratic water-carrier of such sterling reliability that he makes Gunga Din look like a slacker, had to concede on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Clinton campaign no longer has a Schweizer problem. It has “a New York Times problem.” It’s hard to boil down the Times’ deeply detailed account, but the broad brushstrokes are as follows: A Canadian business wanted to sell its uranium mines in Kazakhstan and the U.S. to a Russian state-run — i.e., Vladimir Putin–run — firm. I know what you’re thinking: What could go wrong? In order to grease the skids — allegedly, of course — Canadian uranium moguls Frank Giustra and Ian Telfer gave millions to the Clinton Foundation and arranged for $500,000 speech by Bill Clinton (whose speaking fees mysteriously skyrocketed after his wife became secretary of state), bankrolled by a Russian investment bank with interests in the deal. While in Kazakhstan, former president Clinton agreed to hold a joint press conference with president-for-life Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. (He’s been getting “re-elected” with just shy of 100 percent of the vote since 1989.) Clinton generously praised Kazakhstan’s human rights record, a propaganda gift of the first order. Days later, Giustra’s deal was approved by the Kazakh government.
Read more at: the corruption... will it hurt the clintons?
continued..
So again: How should we think about all of this? One place not to look for answers is the Clinton leviathan and its sundry remoras. For starters, no matter what the allegation, the Clinton response is always to shoot the messengers and point to the alleged misdeeds of somebody else.
Hey look - Balls is taking his marching orders seriously. Lock step, baby.
Bill Clinton seems to show up a lot in Frank Giustra's twitter stream. Looks like they spend a lot of time together.
I'm sure all the mining is really great for the environment.
Kinda sucks when a NYTimes reporter ((everyone knows the NYT is a reliable and loyal pro-democrat "news" source)) catches the Clinton in a lie.
"will the MSM reach a point where this behavior is unacceptable to even to them?"
Only if Hillary! turns conservative.
Hillary wants to topple the top 1%.
Hillary heads to Calif. to raise money at home of billionaire owner of Univision
President Grant used to take money from the sutlers who sold whiskey to the Indians.
What does that have to do with Hillary selling her office like a two dollar whore.
LOL. It's all baseless! baseless! Koch! Koch! btw- send money!
Yahoo "news" - is saying "there's not a shred of evidence!"
pathetic.
"not a shred of evidence" is not the same as "They did not do it."
"Not a shred of evidence" is simply weak journalism, and/or Clinton favoritism. An honest journalist would find the evidence. Agreements, disclosures, FOIA requests to see who in the BHO administration signed off on the deal.
Yahoo is in the protection racket, not the business of journalism.
The Clintons openly break the law, to profit themselves even if it is to the detriment of the nation, fully expecting that the media will cover for them. It always has, after all. Imagine how they must be falling apart internally over the coverage, however tepid, that this is getting so far.
Only 15% of the Clinton Foundation money actually goes to charity:
Allah say:
By the way, how does the Clinton Foundation spend all that money? Saving lives?
That’s what they say. But who really knows? Another review of the foundation’s tax documents found that the Clinton Foundation raised more than $500 million between 2009 and 2012, but spent only 15 percent of that money ($75 million) on grants to charitable organizations and causes. More than 25 percent ($135 million) went toward employee compensation, benefits, and travel expenses. The rest was classified as “other expenses,” whatever that means.
Post a Comment