REVEALED: New Emails Show More Clinton/Russia collusion
The REAL Russian collusion story starring Bill and Hillary Clinton has a new twist.
In addition to the new FBI documents proving the Clintons sold our nation’s uranium to the Russians for a fat “donation” to The Clinton Foundation, new emails recovered show that Bill Clinton’s trip to Russia in June of 2010 was about helping family members “grow investments in their business with Russian oligarchs and other businesses.”
A close associate of Bill Clinton who was directly involved in the Moscow trip and spoke on condition of anonymity, described to The Hill the circumstances surrounding how Bill Clinton landed a $500,000 speaking gig in Russia and then came up with the list of Russians he wanted to meet.
Documents show Bill Clinton’s personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later.
The Clinton friend said the former president’s office then began assembling a list of requests to meet with Russian business and government executives whom he could meet on the trip. One of the goals of the trip was to try to help a Clinton family relative “grow investments in their business with Russian oligarchs and other businesses,” the friend told The Hill.
“It was one of the untold stories of the Russia trip. People have focused on Uranium One and the speaking fees, but opening up a business spigot for the family business was one only us insiders knew about,” the friend said.
“We knew of some sort of transactions in which the Clintons received funds and Russia received approvals, and the question has always been how and if those two events are connected,” he said. “I think this provides further evidence the two may be connected.”
In response the Clinton camp still calls this damning evidence “fake news.”
“Aides to the ex-president, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation said Bill Clinton did not have any conversations about Rosatom or the Uranium One deal while in Russia, and that no one connected to the deal was involved in the trip. A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.”
We reported recently of FBI documents released proving the Clintons participated in bribes, kickbacks, and pay for play with the Russians. Hillary Clinton maintains her innocence.
“I would say it’s the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone. In fact, it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”
Over the next week America will be treated to more evidence around the crooked dealings of the Clintons and supporters. There will be no bounds in participants, even leading to Obama and high-level staffers.
Ironically, none of this is real news.
I wrote of the post-election demise of The Clinton Foundation:
I have two words for the Clintons: Lance Armstrong.
Like Lance Armstrong, the Clintons have been doping, politically speaking.
At one point in the investigation of the allegations that Armstrong used banned substances to win, he replied,
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
When it comes to the Clintons, even extraordinary proof hasn’t worked so far.
Like Clintons, Armstrong proved to be above the law. His charitable works “fighting cancer” overshadowed any and all accusations that the golden boy of cycling was anything but on the up and up. In the end we got our proof. Armstrong was doping.
Like Armstrong, the Clintons have used their charity to hide their devious dealings.
However, with the demise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations and political career, The Clinton’s house of cards has begun to fall. As the New York Post reported,
Donations to the Clinton Foundation nose-dived last year amid Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, pay-to-play allegations, internal strife and a black mark from a charity watchdog.
Contributions fell by 37 percent to $108 million, down from $172 million in 2014, according to the group’s latest tax filings.
The cash plummeted as Hillary Clinton left the nonprofit in April 2015 after announcing her ill-fated candidacy. The foundation became a major issue in the race, with Donald Trump vowing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it.
Again, we’ve known about the crooked Clinton Foundation for years. Peter Schweizer connected the dots in his book Clinton Cash.
This story appeared in The Atlantic back in April of 2015:
It’s been clear for some time that the Clinton Foundation presented tricky and novel conflict-of-interest challenges for the candidate, and now the specific stories of those challenges are emerging. In fact, it can be tough to keep them straight. Here’s a quick rundown.
1. The State Department, Uranium, and the Russian Government
This one is complicated, in part because many of the relationships are carefully kept at arm’s length for legal and ethical reasons, but The New York Times lays it out in a lengthy story. In 2005, Canadian businessman Frank Giustra acquired uranium interests in Kazakhstan, on a trip with former President Bill Clinton. The following year, he gave more than $31 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2007, Giustra’s UrAsia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, and acquired U.S. uranium concerns. In 2009, the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, reached a deal to take a 17 percent stake in Uranium One. In 2010, it increased that to a controlling 51 percent stake, and in 2013 acquired the rest of the company.
Because the U.S. considers uranium a strategic asset, the acquisition had to be approved by a government commission. Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, sat on the commission. As Rosatom gradually increased its stake, million of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation, including $2.35 million from the family foundation of Uranium One’s chairman. Despite an agreement forged with the White House when Hillary Clinton became secretary, requiring the Clinton Foundation to disclose all of its donors, these donations were not disclosed. In total, people affiliated with Uranium One or its predecessor gave more than $8 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2008 and 2010. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, paid for by a bank boosting Uranium One stock.
The Times notes that it’s impossible to prove any clear connection, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign said that the donations had not affected her judgment, and noted that many other agencies also had to sign off on the deal.
Now that we know a LOT more about this scandal, the second point is much more interesting:
Go here to see where the next part of this story leads…