WOW! Is It True
 

Considering that the story is released by the NY Times, The Democratic Party official newsletter, it's a safe bet it's true. The NY Times isn't known for smearing the Clintons.

If true, it's one more example of lies and controversy form a repugnant, morally bankrupt clan that does whatever they want, and gets offended when they are questioned about anything.

Hilary just went on a "blame the rich for stacking the deck against us" tour, as if she's not one of the rich. If this story is true, well, she wouldn't be the first politician to whore herself out for money. But what gets me is the smug way in which she decries the way the deck is stacked in favor of the rich, and at the same time, engages in that very behavior.

This family has no morals whatsoever, and their hypocrisy is limitless. They, like the Kennedys, are made of Bush anti-matter.

And while influence-peddling isn't uncommon, it's not every day a politician takes money where something like uranium is concerned. If the product in question was rubber duckies, it would still be a legitimate scandal. The fact that the scandal involves giving uranium to an adversarial nation, is really breathtaking.

I still don't think she's beatable in either the primary of the general. If this story is true, we're going to elect a POTUS who at best took a kickback (at worst took a bribe) to get uranium into the hands of Russia. Spence, Paul S, go ahead and defend that...

If it is true, the Billary lovers will find it easy to defend it. " Eveytbody does it. "

LOL

Who, exactly, does this? What former presidential candidate was already worth tens of millions of dollars, and took kickbacks to give huge quantities of uranium to an adversarial nation? I don't think THAT happens every day. This is not garden-variety influence-peddling...

That's assuming it's true, which maybe it's not. I hope it's not true, because that would be better than (1) finding out it is true, and (2) electing her anyway, just because her re-productive organs are different than her opponent's, which means exactly zilch to me, but for some Godforsaken reason, means everything to millions of people.

they are assassins .... in sheep's clothing

I agree but I also think most people at that level of politico are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It boggles the mind of any logical MORAL person that these POS politicians haven't been dragged out of office and publicly executed for their activities?

Of course they have other friends in low places that will back them up to the hilt, so getting rid of the "head" will only spur on more scum of the same mold, so we wouldn't get rid of the problem just the symptom!

Waiting for Spencer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary Clinton and the Russian donors who then bought up American uranium production.

Oh, the (deniable) wickedness of the world.


By: Moe Lane (Diary) | April 23rd, 2015 at 08:00 AM | 13


The first of many shoes has dropped in relation to the Clinton Foundation and its donors. This one is coming to us, courtesy of the New York Times: and it’s a “BOOM goes the dynamite” kind of situation. The keywords are “Clinton Foundation,” “Russians,” “donations,” and “uranium:”


As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One [a company responsible for one-fifth of the uranium production in the United States] 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.



Let’s get this out of the way, because right now minions are gearing up to start throwing their bodies on this particular bonfire: yes, the New York Times got the tip on this from Peter Schweizer, author of the upcoming book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. Said book promises to make for fascinating reading for most of my audience, but it should be understood that this story was not fed to the New York Times. This story is the result of the New York Times vetting particular details.

And the results are nicely problematic for Team Clinton. Basically, this story looks a good deal like the one that recently laid low Oregon Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber: money was given to a person/group affiliated with a politician, and oddly enough that politician made decisions that well-pleased the people giving the money. In Kitzhaber’s case the bagman was his fiancee: in Hillary Clinton’s case… well, ‘bagman’ is such a harsh word, is it not? Nonetheless, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious, particularly since there are now some questions about just how much the Clinton Foundation spends on actual charity.

And the most interesting part? Hillary Clinton apparently cannot provide exculpatory email evidence to the contrary. That’s the flip side to Team Clinton’s amusingly precise statement that nobody “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” All those emails got deleted. Which means that Hillary Clinton’s main defense is Trust me.

LOL ,this should be good. Gotta luv the guy though. :hihi:
Probably something like they were broke when they left the WH and
had to make up for it somehow. :)

I can't take some customers out for a round of golf or dinner anymore as it is a "conflict of interest" yet much worse forms of this with high stakes are happening at the Governement level.....

The key line for me out of this is:
"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."

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politi...icle-1.2195655
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just about anyone else would be put in irons and dragged in front of the public square. But that is OK - Wall Street is the problem, not the political dynasties.

I am waiting for all of the anti-Halyburton people to start up. Crickets.

BTW - this hypocrisy is part of what made me no longer a Democrat and become unaffiliated.

Right.....We know it wasnt Hillary the blew the Money....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton Foundation called a slush fund by charity monitor



By: streiff (Diary) | April 27th, 2015 at 07:33 PM | 9


Via the NY Post:





“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In fact, the finances are so bad that one major charity rating group, Charity Navigator, refuses to give the Clinton Foundation a rating:


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

…

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Last year, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell drew 2 years in prison. He was accused of accepting golf outings, free travel, and loans from a political donor well under $200,000 in value. What this shows is that if you have the right politics during the time a Democrat is president that you are bulletproof. Where GOP administrations will hound even allies from office with malicious prosecutions (see Stevens, Ted and Libby, Scooter), the Obama administration relentlessly protects those with the correct politics. Otherwise, Eric Holder and Lois Lerner would have paid attention to this nest of corruption.