It seems the news media has somehow discovered there is something fishy smelling at best, and maybe illegal at worst, about the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia after the Clinton Foundation, a philanthropy run by her husband, William Jefferson Clinton (aka POTUS 42), received "contributions" from Russians close to the uranium deal.
BIG SHOCK!
Well put me in for a Pulitzer Prize!
I wrote about this very sort of sleaze in this blog back on June 9, 2016. The Clinton's IMO set up a pretty sweet scheme whereby "contributions" were made to the pure-as-the-driven-snow Clinton Foundation, then Senator and later Sec of State Hillary Clinton blessed a transaction favored by the same contributors. I doubt they'll find any paper trail on the subject as a casual comment and an understanding nod over dinner between husband and wife sealed the deal.
This is what our politicians do...."one for me, and one for the country". They go in with a modest net worth, and leave public service filthy rich. Coincidence? Methinks not.
To save you from scouring my blog archive (in the column on the right), below is what I wrote 16 months ago. As Yogi Berra would have said, "It's deja vu all over again."
S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So why won't I vote for her [Hillary Clinton]? It's all about trust, or lack there of. For starts, it's hard for me to separate the activities of the Clinton Foundation run by her husband and her duties as a Senator or Secretary of State. There is no clear demarcation.
Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions, a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a "philanthropic foundation" controlled by policymakers. (A tidy little loophole, wouldn't you say?)
Admittedly the philanthropic Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good for a lot of worthy causes. But mixed in with its good deeds are lots of highly suspicious "coincidences". While it was perfectly legal for anyone to give to the non-profit Clinton Foundation while Hillary was a sitting US Senator and a cabinet official during the Obama administration, the potential for abuse was off the chart. As an aspiring public servant, she should never have let herself be put in such a compromising position. It was simply a bad decision of the highest order.
Consider this: In 2011 while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department approved a $29 billion dollar sale of American-built fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, despite the pleas of many that a deal that large would upset the delicate balance of power in the region. The deal was even considered a "top priority" for Ms. Clinton personally. Is it just a coincidence that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and Boeing contributed $900,000 just months before the sale was given official approval?
In fact, in just three years (2011-2013) under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion dollars worth of arms sales to 20 nations who had given contributions to the Clinton Foundation. This number is over twice as much as was approved by the State Department in the same time frame during the last term of George W. Bush.
*sniff*....What's that smell?
And does this seem odd?....Hillary Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation.
In fact, 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency. Even if it was a coincidence, just the appearance of impropriety is staggering!
And then we get to her (likely) coziness with Wall Street. In that regard she seems more like an old-school Republican. Doesn't it seem suspicious that she was paid $1.8 million dollars to make just eight speeches in less than two years to big banks? And just this election cycle, based on their campaign contributions to date, she is far and away their favorite candidate.
Do you think they sought her out as a speaker because of her good looks and personality, or could it have something to do with the fact that maybe, just maybe, they felt their relationship might soon pay big dividends if she were to become President of the United States? Whether true or not, the opportunity to personally gain from her official position and her relationship with Bill's Clinton Foundation is just too tempting. She sleeps with the guy, for crying out loud!
Spend just a few minutes on Google and see all this and much more documented for yourself.
Yes, I know...."They all do it." But they aren't ALL running for President. We've been giving such shenanigans a blind eye for too many years now, and IMHO it has resulted in the mess we're in today. We can't afford to put someone in the White House who could with the stoke of a pen put a fast buck ahead of our national interests.
