The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

The Real Russian Scandal

There were far too many legitimate scandals during the Obama years (purposely ignored and or downplayed by the trained hamsters of the mainstream media) and even more instances of dishonesty, corruption, and general incompetence on the part of Hillary Clinton (purposely ignored or downplayed by the trained hamsters of the mainstream media) during that same time. I recognize that discussing them after the fact has become tedious, but that's exactly what Obama and Clinton hoped would happen as they lied, stonewalled, and otherwise obfuscated any attempt to uncover the truth contemporaneously.

For years, clear-eyed observers have noted that the Clintons accepted millions "donated" to the Clinton Foundation as quid pro quo for dirty dealings while Hillary was Secretary of State. There was also evidence that the Obama administration knew about those dirty dealings and did nothing. There were no investigative reports by the trained hamsters of the media because the findings would embarrass (or worse) their chosen president and his anointed successor.

Now, after lengthy litigation and FOI requests, one of those scandals is re-surfacing. The New York Post Editorial Board comments:
It turns out the Obama administration knew the Russians were engaged in bribery, kickbacks and extortion in order to gain control of US atomic resources — yet still OK’d that 2010 deal to give Moscow control of one-fifth of America’s uranium. This reeks.

Peter Schweizer got onto part of the scandal in his 2015 book, “Clinton Cash”: the gifts of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the $500,000 fee to Bill for a single speech, by individuals involved in a deal that required Hillary Clinton’s approval.

The New York Times confirmed and followed up on Schweizer’s reporting — all of it denounced by Hillary as a partisan hit job.

But now The Hill reports that the FBI in 2009 had collected substantial evidence — eyewitnesses backed by documents — of money-laundering, blackmail and bribery by Russian nuclear officials, all aimed at growing “Vladimir Putin’s atomic-energy business inside the United States” in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The bureau even flagged the routing of millions from Russian nuclear officials to cutouts and on to Clinton Inc.

Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal — though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national security implications, and during the campaign called the payments a coincidence.

The Obama administration — anxious to “reset” US-Russian relations — kept it all under wraps, refusing to tell even top congressional intelligence figures.
Where are the Democrats as all of this comes to light? After all, they're so, so worried about Russian "collusion" with Donald Trump, you'd think they might be equally worried when a President ignores Russian bribes and pay-offs associated with nuclear material (!!) orchestrated by his own Secretary of State. Nah ... crickets.

An even more interesting question is why the Trump DoJ and Jeff Sessions don't institute a criminal probe. Sure, like everything the Clinton mafia has done, there are convoluted arrangements, cut-outs that obscure the trail of money, and a patina of deniability. But under it all is corruption of the highest order.

The next time you hear a progressive suggest that if only Hillary Clinton were president all would be right with the world, ask yourself what dirty deals she might have already initiated. Even worse, ask yourself whether the trained hamsters in the media would call her on it.


It occurs to me that there is a still more interesting question about the Obama-Clinton-Russia scandal. Will Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, investigate it? After all, it's well within his purview of investigating ways in which Russia may have affected American politics, and there are certainly collusive elements to it. If Mueller punts, as I suspect he will, it only emphasize the hyper-partisan nature of his investigation and taint any findings that he ultimately reports.