T Nation

Clinton Cash


#1

I've been following this developing scandal. They have only released a handful of examples of what appears to be influence peddling and it already looks terrible. I wonder how much worse it is going to get when the book actually is released.

This latest one has to be one of the worse. Back in the fifties she could have gone to the electric chair for aiding a Russian takeover of a fifth of the US Uranium industry. Someone who would sell out national security for a couple million should never be president.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/22/nyt-clintons-failed-to-disclose-2-35m-donation-from-russian-owned-uranium-corp/

From the New York Times:

The headline in Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putinâ??s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when the newspaper served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: â??Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.â??

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the 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 worldâ??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.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clintonâ??s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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 Oneâ??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.

Read the rest of the story here.


#2

…and she’ll run a campaign telling the “working class” that she’ll fight for them against the Robber Barons.


#3

You could clothe the world with the dirty laundry Clinton has in her closet. Same could be said for most lifetime politicians.

I think the Democrats best hope is her to lose/drop out for whatever reason. She will lose in the general. You can’t be a populist anti-Wall Street warrior when you’ve been in the crony capitalism game for decades. People are going to see right through the ruse.


#4

[quote]H factor wrote:
You could clothe the world with the dirty laundry Clinton has in her closet. Same could be said for most lifetime politicians.

I think the Democrats best hope is her to lose/drop out for whatever reason. She will lose in the general. You can’t be a populist anti-Wall Street warrior when you’ve been in the crony capitalism game for decades. People are going to see right through the ruse. [/quote]

Obama duped the American people about him being against Wall Street, when in fact he took more money from Wall Street than any politician in history.

“The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history.”

People will always fall for bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67770.html


#5

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
You could clothe the world with the dirty laundry Clinton has in her closet. Same could be said for most lifetime politicians.

I think the Democrats best hope is her to lose/drop out for whatever reason. She will lose in the general. You can’t be a populist anti-Wall Street warrior when you’ve been in the crony capitalism game for decades. People are going to see right through the ruse. [/quote]

Obama duped the American people about him being against Wall Street, when in fact he took more money from Wall Street than any politician in history.

“The president has raised more money from Wall Street through the Democratic National Committee and his campaign account than any politician in American history.”

People will always fall for bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67770.html[/quote]

Obama first time around was an unknown quantity. People didn’t have enough on him to point out or really know where he stood. They were more likely to accept his word or hope his word is true. He hadn’t been in the game long enough to really throw out stuff that had a lot of backing behind him.

Clinton won’t have this advantage. She has been in the game a long time and her actions are much more well known. She is going to have to run as a populist and a lot of evidence is going to show counter to that fact.

People may fall for bullshit easily, but it is far easier to point out the bullshit behind Hilary for the GOP than it ever would have been for John McCain.


#6

Here’s more from here
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/356338.php
to


and a video


#7

This Uranium thing is blowing up all over the conservative circuit. But if I recall, she was one of seven cabinet members that approved it, so while I feel she is definitely guilty of taking bribes, the corruption of the entire Obama administration should be looked into as well. I mean who in their right mind would allow Russia to control twenty fucking percent of OUR Uranium reserves?


#8

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
This Uranium thing is blowing up all over the conservative circuit. But if I recall, she was one of seven cabinet members that approved it, so while I feel she is definitely guilty of taking bribes, the corruption of the entire Obama administration should be looked into as well. I mean who in their right mind would allow Russia to control twenty fucking percent of OUR Uranium reserves?[/quote]

Now we have an idea why she deleted emails and wiped her server, what could be found on it is probably much worse than breaking some law.


#9

How come her servers haven’t been seized?


#10

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How come her servers haven’t been seized?[/quote]

Just waiting for elizabeth warren to get her campaign shit in order…

The left does not want hillary.


#11

Oh no, not muh uraniums! I love the gop spin-docktery in this one.

Her supporters are as completely deluded as she is and none of her depredations will matter to these self-righteous voters.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Someone who would sell out national security for a couple million should never be president. [/quote]

Your estimate is too low. How about a billion? Those are more presidential figures, don’t you think?


#12

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How come her servers haven’t been seized?[/quote]

Just waiting for elizabeth warren to get her campaign shit in order…

The left does not want hillary. [/quote]

You are spot on with that call.

The left which includes the left wing media (and Hollywood) as well as the powerful left wing of the democratic party does not want Hillary. They are after her as much as the republican party. They want her out in plenty of time to put up someone more in the image of their God Barack. Hillary may not even be the democratic nominee. And that will clear the way for (crazy) Elizabeth Warren who is not ready for prime time as a national candidate. And closely resembles everyone’s nastiest teacher or mother in law.

So…I’m liking what I’m seeing so far…


#13

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How come her servers haven’t been seized?[/quote]

Just waiting for elizabeth warren to get her campaign shit in order…

The left does not want hillary. [/quote]

You are spot on with that call.

The left which includes the left wing media (and Hollywood) as well as the powerful left wing of the democratic party does not want Hillary. They are after her as much as the republican party. They want her out in plenty of time to put up someone more in the image of their God Barack. Hillary may not even be the democratic nominee. And that will clear the way for (crazy) Elizabeth Warren who is not ready for prime time as a national candidate. And closely resembles everyone’s nastiest teacher or mother in law.

So…I’m liking what I’m seeing so far…[/quote]

Hopefully liz warren gets thrown out there before she’s ready and exposes the crazy which is the left.


#14

No one is going to vote for the old librarian that is Liz Warren. She will not get the youth vote, the kewl vote, or the minority vote, not the way Obama did. For the moment, slight advantage Republican.


#15

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh no, not muh uraniums! I love the gop spin-docktery in this one.

Her supporters are as completely deluded as she is and none of her depredations will matter to these self-righteous voters.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Someone who would sell out national security for a couple million should never be president. [/quote]

Your estimate is too low. How about a billion? Those are more presidential figures, don’t you think?[/quote]

What is your point here? Where do you stand on the issue?
(serious question I’m confused with your posts)


#16

[quote]H factor wrote:
You could clothe the world with the dirty laundry Clinton has in her closet. Same could be said for most lifetime politicians.[/quote]

Yep, nothing new here. I’m not sure if it’s possible to be a lifetime politician without dirty laundry.

[quote]H factor wrote:
I think the Democrats best hope is her to lose/drop out for whatever reason. She will lose in the general. You can’t be a populist anti-Wall Street warrior when you’ve been in the crony capitalism game for decades. People are going to see right through the ruse. [/quote]

I disagree and think she would be the Dems strongest candidate in a general election. Whether she can win or not depends on a lot of things that haven’t happened yet, including who wins the Republican primary. I also think you give people too much credit for being able to detect they’re being played. Particularly for a presidential election where many people voting do not keep up with current events outside of entertainment.


#17

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How come her servers haven’t been seized?[/quote]

Just waiting for elizabeth warren to get her campaign shit in order…

The left does not want hillary. [/quote]

My prediction is Carcetti will emerge as Hillary’s chief rival, not Warren. That is pure speculation on my part. Carcetti is pretty sleazy himself but he has strong left wing support. He’s also played the political game very efficiently and has amassed a resume that he will be able to sell. He’s also the only former Gov running on the Dem side, which he can use to differentiate himself.

Warren will also be splitting the vote among people purely voting for the female candidate so won’t have a prime advantage over Carcetti.

But I agree with many here who have said the left doesn’t want Hillary. But I’m not sure how powerful the left is. Most democrats are not huffington post reading liberals.


#18

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
How come her servers haven’t been seized?[/quote]

Just waiting for elizabeth warren to get her campaign shit in order…

The left does not want hillary. [/quote]

My prediction is Carcetti will emerge as Hillary’s chief rival, not Warren. That is pure speculation on my part. Carcetti is pretty sleazy himself but he has strong left wing support. He’s also played the political game very efficiently and has amassed a resume that he will be able to sell. He’s also the only former Gov running on the Dem side, which he can use to differentiate himself.

Warren will also be splitting the vote among people purely voting for the female candidate so won’t have a prime advantage over Carcetti.

But I agree with many here who have said the left doesn’t want Hillary. But I’m not sure how powerful the left is. Most democrats are not huffington post reading liberals.[/quote]

Good point.

The typical American democrat is not a screaming left wing, tax hiking, God hating lefty. There are multiple factions of the democratic party…which I won’t get in to now. Suffice it to say that most are pretty normal hardworking people. Not the fanatics that the media pushes.

As for Barack Obama, he was the perfect liberal storm. A charismatic man with a great smile without a voting record, or a record of any kind to speak of. Who didn’t talk a lot about his real positions and values as a candidate (such as his obvious hate for Israel). As for the medial they allowed him to get away with his lefty background as a community organizer and his Saul Alinskiy radical beliefs.

He popped on the scene and wowed the left, most of the independents and even some republicans who thought it would be cool to have a black President. Not thinking, or even caring about his many, many shortcomings unrelated to race of course.

In short, they elected a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don’t see that same or even a similar scenario playing out anytime in the near future. Elizabeth Warren is a bug eyed, shrill speaking left wing fanatic who when given exposure at the national level will be rejected hands down.


#19

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Elizabeth Warren is a bug eyed, shrill speaking left wing fanatic who when given exposure at the national level will be rejected hands down.
[/quote]

dont underestimate the power of the media, and the stupidity of the general population.

We got 8 years of bullshit due to the media. The potus election has become nothing more than a high school popularity contest.


#20

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Elizabeth Warren is a bug eyed, shrill speaking left wing fanatic who when given exposure at the national level will be rejected hands down.
[/quote]

dont underestimate the power of the media, and the stupidity of the general population.

We got 8 years of bullshit due to the media. The potus election has become nothing more than a high school popularity contest. [/quote]

There is no amount of media slant that can make Elizabeth Warren look good–NONE. A turd is a turd…

As for the popularity contest you speak of, I totally agree. But in order to be popular you must possess a certain amount of charisma. Obama has it, Hillary has none, Elizabeth Warren is the anti-charisma candidate. If she borrowed 25% of Obama’s Charisma she would then have zero.