"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
AN AMERICAN TRAITOR - HILLARY CLINTON AND HER RUSSIAN BRIBES
Peter Schweizer: ‘Legions More Evidence’ Against ‘Clinton World,’ but Only Trump ‘Gets Investigated’
Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News, highlighted the evidence of Russia-related political corruption connected to Bill and Hillary Clinton and John Podesta while reflecting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian political interference involving President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Schweizer joined Monday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight for an interview with hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.
LISTEN:
Schweizer said, “The very thing that they are accusing Donald Trump of having done, which Mueller has come back and said there’s no evidence for — not that there’s a little evidence or a small amount of evidence; there’s no evidence — is the very sort of behavior that you could look at the Clinton relationships in Russia — the commercial ties, the financial ties, the favors done — and raise those very same questions.”
Schweizer added, “In the case of the Clintons and the Clinton world, they have long, deep, abiding ties with Putin’s Russia. On the Uranium One deal, this is basically a company that was formed back in 2005 when Bill Clinton helped a Canadian named Frank Giustra obtain uranium rights in Kazakhstan in 2005.”
Schweizer continued, “There’s been really no investigation of the Clinton world, where you have all of these financial transactions and political favors being done. It’s quite an astonishing contrast between the two.”
“Mainstream media news outlets,” observed Schweizer, refuse to inquire about relationships between the Russian government and the Podesta and Clinton families.
Schweizer explained how the Clinton Foundation received money from Russian sources who directly benefited from a State Department initiative led by Hillary Clinton to enhance Russia’s technological capacities — including military applications — via its Skolkovo Innovation Center.
“Another [event] that goes to the heart of this issue with Russia … is an initiative that Hillary Clinton had while she was secretary of state called Skolkovo,” stated Schweizer. “Skolkovo was an initiative by the Hillary Clinton State Department to help the Russians during the Russian Reset — so this is 2009 through basically 2011 and 2012 — develop their own Silicon Valley.”
Schweizer went on, “Now, what could go wrong with an idea like that? Essentially what they did was, they lined up Western tech companies to help the Russian government develop its technological capabilities. Some of the members of Skolkovo became donors to the Clinton Foundation and the Russians took Skolkovo.”
Schweizer continued, “This is of course all happening while her foundation is getting money from Russian-linked companies that wanted the Uranium One deal to go through — that Skolkovo ends up enhancing the Russian military, and that was the conclusion of the U.S. Army and the military who did reports [saying] Skolkovo helped the Russian military develop its hypersonic cruise missile. That’s their words, not mine.”
Schweizer concluded, “Yet again, here you have another area in which team Clinton [is not investigated]. “There’s a transference of funds, some of the Skolkovo participants on the Russian side are giving money to the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is carrying out initiatives that are beneficial to the Russian military, and nobody asks a question about it. Nobody challenges her about it. She is somehow the adult in the room that is going to handle Russian policy and is going to be so much better at it than anybody else.”
“It’s always hard to know why political leaders make certain decisions,” stated Schweizer. “In the case of the Clintons, we know that they were getting paid and we know that they were taking favorable actions for these foreign entities. … I don’t know why the Justice Department under Donald Trump didn’t seem to investigate these matters related to the Clintons.”
Combating foreign-funded political corruption must be prioritized by the Trump administration, advised Schweizer. “This is vital to pursue, not so much because it’s Hillary and Bill Clinton, but because it cuts to the heart of the problems we have in Washington, DC,” he said. “And that is the fact that the permanent political class — this includes Republicans and Democrats — are cashing in big time with foreign entities. We are long past the day when we should be worrying just about pharmaceutical companies or oil companies or labor unions manipulating our politicians.”
Schweizer explained how the Clintons innovated and set new precedents for the monetization of political influence.
“The game in town, now, is foreign money, because there’s a lot more of it,” remarked Schweizer. “What the Clintons basically did was set up a system that said, ‘We are going to get paid while we are in political office.’ Think about this. The idea, 20 years ago, that you could be the secretary of state — America’s lead diplomat [and] strategist on foreign policy — and your husband could be getting paychecks from foreign governments for speeches, and be paid speaking fees that are multiple times more than he was getting before you became secretary of state, and that you family foundation — which had your name on it until you took it off the day before you became secretary of state — could be taking in hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments at the same time you’re America’s chief diplomat is mind-boggling. And yet that’s what the Clintons did.”
Schweizer lamented what he described as partisan and political favoritism afforded to Democrats by the federal government’s investigative bodies.
“[With] Hillary Clinton, you didn’t have some anonymously-sourced dossier that nobody would independently verify that launched a thousand ships to investigate the president,” Schweizer compared. “You had a secretary of state and her husband who were taking donations from individuals and foreign governments, they were hiding those donations, they signed an agreement with President Obama saying they were going to disclose all of them, they were actively hiding them from public scrutiny, and they were making decisions that benefited the people that were paying them money. That’s legions more evidence than you had in the Trump case, and yet one gets investigated and on does not.”
“There needs to be a standard in looking looking at a problem or issue,” declared Schweizer. “So if you’re concerned about Russian meddling in American politics and that there’s some kind of collusion or favoritism going on, why are you only interested in one person doing it? Why do you not say, ‘We’re concerned about Russian influence at the highest levels of American politics’?”
Schweizer closed, “My larger point is, why are you only interested in contacts, possible collaboration or collusion, or transactions involving one political figure and administration, and not another? If the problem is a problem, it should be an equal problem whether the person has a D or R after their name.”
Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.
After one year, ten months and five days and the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted a report that concluded there was no evidence of Russian collusion by President Trump or anyone on his campaign team, nor is there any evidence to support obstruction of justice charges against the president.
The obvious question that arises now that the Mueller probe has come up dry is why was such an investigation even launched?
It is a well-known tactic, particularly among modern-day Democratic political operatives, to accuse your opponent of committing offenses that you and your team have actually committed. By doing so, you deflect public opinion away from what must not be discovered–your own illegal activities.
A number of unanswered questions surround the role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in handing over 20 percent of America’s uranium supplies to Uranium One, a company entirely owned by the Russian government. To date, no serious investigation has been launched into this highly controversial decision.
“In a controversial 2010 deal, ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian government-owned nuclear energy conglomerate, obtained a controlling 51 percent interest in Uranium One. That’s the Canadian company at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals. The deal appears to have been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency committee of the federal government, 52 days after Uranium One’s shareholders signed off on the takeover,” Breitbart News reported in May 2015:
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee of the federal government, first established by an Executive Order from President Ford in 1975. Congress strengthened its mandate when it passed the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA). As amended by a 2008 Presidential Executive Order, FINSA requires that all foreign acquisitions of American assets considered to be central to American national security require the review and approval of CFIUS.
The CFIUS board consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury, and two additional high ranking federal executives. Typically, cabinet members designate representatives to serve on CFIUS.
As Breitbart News noted, “The speedy approval of the ARMZ-Uranium One transaction (CFIUS Case No. 10-40) raises the possibility that the deal may have received expedited treatment, though the management of Canadian based Uranium One stated in a Management Information Circular/Notice to Shareholders published August 6, 2010 and dated August 3, 2010 that “Uranium One and ARMZ intend to submit a joint voluntary notice with CFIUS during the first week of August 2010.”
What raised eyebrows–but not investigations at the time or subsequently–was the fact that the Uranium One–the company that sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to a company owned by the Russian government–was controlled by Ian Telfer, a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, and was the successor to a company controlled by Frank Giustra, another major donor to the Clinton Foundation, as Breitbart News reported:
Ian Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, donated $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 through his family controlled Fernwood Foundation. Other Uranium One executives and investors contributed between $1 million and $5 million during the same period.
“Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations [of $2.3 million through his family foundation] came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines,” the New York Timesreported.
When the 2010 transaction closed, ARMZ gave Uranium One $610 million in cash and controlling interest in two uranium mines in Kazhakstan in return for the issuance of 360 million new shares in the company. Combined with the estimated 109 million shares it already owned (a year earlier, it had purchased 17 percent of the company), the additional shares gave ARMZ ownership of an estimated 469 million shares, or 51 percent of the company’s outstanding 920 million shares.
Owners of the remaining 451 million shares, of whom Chairman Ian Telfer was one of the largest, received a one-time dividend of $1.06 per share, for a total of $479 million.
The Uranium One press release announcing the August 31, 2010 shareholder approval stated, “[a]s previously announced, as part of the Akbastau and Zarechnoye transaction ARMZ will also contribute US $610 million in cash to Uranium One, of which approximately US $479 million will be paid directly to shareholders (other than ARMZ) as a change of control premium after closing, by way of a special dividend of US $1.06 per share”
The company’s Management Information Circular dated April 13, 2010, a solicitation of proxies in advance of the company’s 2010 annual meeting, showed Chairman Telfer owned 800,000 shares personally and had options on an additional 675,000 shares. If those options were exercised, Telfer would have received at least $1.5 million in a one-time preferred dividend from the transaction.
Significantly, the company document acknowledges this reporting is totally reliant upon the transparency of Telfer: “The information as to common shares beneficially owned or over which control or direction is exercised (not being within the knowledge of the Corporation) has been furnished by the respective nominees individually.”
The ties between Uranium One executives and the Clinton Foundation may be stronger than has been previously reported.
Uranium One is the successor company to UrAsia Energy, the Canadian company founded in 2005 by Frank Giustra, who donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2006 and a year later established the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian non-profit that has raised $30 million and donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Giustra has stated that he sold all his shares in Uranium One in 2007, but he remains a close business associate with Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer, who also serves as Chairman of Goldcorp, one of the largest gold mining companies in the world. Before he established UrAsia Energy, Giustra made huge profits on his earlier investment in Goldcorp while Telfer was at the helm there.
CGEP has refused to disclose the names of its 1,100 donors, a lack of transparency that is seen as a violation of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.
We may never know if Uranium One executives made even more hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation through CGEP.
Here is a summary of just part of what we already know and the mainstream media has admitted to be true, as Breitbart News reported back in April 2015:
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration
The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.
As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank
The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.
“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti
The Washington Postconfirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.
According to the Post, Rodham’s mining company “won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,” just as Clinton Cashreveals.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration
The Wall Street Journalconfirms the book’s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.
“About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation’s prime minister to allow ‘open pit mining,’ including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,” reports the Journal.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.
The New York Timesconfirms, “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”
The Times also verifies the book’s reporting that Hillary’s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.
Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by “Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,” a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.
Bloomberg’s examination confirms that “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.
CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns
Reuters has confirmed that “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns” as “the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.”
CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors
The Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”
Of that, reports the Post, “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”
CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial Dealings
CBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s financial records and relationships.
“The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender’s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida’s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush’s private equity funds,” reports CBS News.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.
ABC News has confirmedClinton Cash’s reporting that myriad businesses and individuals paid Bill Clinton to deliver speeches even as their companies had business on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s desk.
“Records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department,” reported ABC News.
ABC News noted it found “an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated,” but that Clinton Cash’s essential “premise” is “supported by records” ABC News independently analyzed.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York
New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker confirmed in a one-hour Fox News television special on Clinton Cash that Bill Clinton lied when questioned about whether Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the Kazakh-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom ever met in Clintons’ home.
The only question that remains is what vehicle should be used to initiate public investigations into possible Russian collusion by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was at the helm in 2010 when the State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of American uranium to a company controlled by the Russian government.
Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.
*
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service” into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.
*
The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
*
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
THE SHADY POLITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON and her PAY-TO-PLAY MAFIA
The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion.
Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain. Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose. PATRICIA McCARTHY
Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before. She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY
No comments:
Post a Comment