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

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Uranium One

It used to be that when a scandal got a simple name (e.g., Watergate, Iran Contra) the administration that was responsible was in trouble. The naming indicated that the mainstream media was focused, that investigations from the media would dig until serious wrongdoing was uncovered and the perpetrators were named. With the onslaught of bad press, the political class was forced to act.

Of course, that only occurred when a GOP administration was in power. During the Obama years there were many named scandals (e.g., Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS Scandal), yet the trained hamsters of the main stream media looked the other way. After all, not a single trained hamster was willing to uncover evidence that might tarnish the god-like image they had created for Barack Obama.

But one Obama era scandal remained below the surface, and although it is no more serious than those already mentions, it just might be something that finally indicated the overall corruption of the past administration. It intangles not only Obama (who, of course, will deny any knowledge of the wrongdoing) but also a who's who of democratic players—Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Robert Mueller). And now it has a simple name—Uranium One.

I've already discussed Uranium One here and here. But despite media efforts to ignore the scandal, it has yet gone away. Andrew McCarthy comments:
Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 — before Donald Trump entered the race — was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering. (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting — successfully — to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.

Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.

The Clintons were just doing what the Clintons do: cashing in on their “public service.” The Obama administration, with Secretary Clinton at the forefront but hardly alone, was knowingly compromising American national-security interests. The administration green-lighted the transfer of control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, a hostile regime — and specifically to Russia’s state-controlled nuclear-energy conglomerate, Rosatom. Worse, at the time the administration approved the transfer, it knew that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was engaged in a lucrative racketeering enterprise that had already committed felony extortion, fraud, and money-laundering offenses.
To paraphrase the blogger IowaHawk, the media will do everything possible to cover this scandal—with a pillow until it stops moving and dies. My guess is that like other named scandals involving their chosen One (and Hillary), Uranium One will be ignored and smothered as the Dems scream witch hunt and otherwise obfuscate, stonewall, and deflect.

If that happens, the Dems and their trained hamsters in the media will believe they've won still another victory, but by ignoring or burying corruption over and over again, they continue to dig a hole that may very well bury them.