I guess we know who American soldiers and National Guard died for in the false flag wars of post September 11,2001 - they dies for Hillary Clinton's,Evelyn de Rothschild's, and Anthony Weiner's and Hillary Clinton's Saudi whore Huma Abedin's lifestyles ...
I guess we know who American soldiers and National Guard died for in the false flag wars of post September 11,2001 - they dies for Hillary Clinton's,Evelyn de Rothschild's, and Anthony Weiner's and Hillary Clinton's Saudi whore Huma Abedin's lifestyles ...
This wasn’t the first time the Clintons satisfied such a desire while collecting megadonations. When it comes to human rights, Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, makes Morocco’s king look enlightened. In power since 1991 and never freely elected, Mr. Nazarbayev must have enjoyed the sensation of Mr. Clinton endorsing him to lead an international election-monitoring group in 2005.
The Kazakh strongman knows how to return a favor, and he granted valuable mining concessions to Clinton Foundation donors. The donors then built a global uranium powerhouse that was eventually sold to the Russians in a deal that required the 2010 approval of a U.S. government committee that included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. To put the cherry on this sundae, the Clintons violated their promise to the Obama administration by failing to publicly identify all the foundation donors.................-Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal
And of course the Boston bombing suspects' well connected Uncle Tsarni with his CIA,U.S. AID,.Dick Cheney Halliburton and probable Hillary Clinton State Department connections in Kazakhstan also did pretty well for himself and may well be a billionaire now if he got his fair share of the $6 billion rip off of Kazakhstan bank scam.Why does Hollywood do big productions one million dollar bank heists and ignore the white collar bank and stock market robberies that loot billions !?
The Tale of Uncle Tsarnaev, CIA Chief Graham Fuller and a Turkish ...
www.progressivepress.net/the-tale-of-uncle-tsarnaev-cia-chief-graham-fu...
Apr 27, 2013 - The Tale of Uncle Tsarnaev, CIA Chief Graham Fuller and a Turkish ... Development (USAID) in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan.Was Boston Bombers 'Uncle Ruslan' with the CIA? — Daniel ...
www.madcowprod.com/.../was-boston-bombers-uncle-ruslan-with-the-ci...
Apr 22, 2013 - “Uncle Ruslan” Tsarni of Montgomery Village Md., whose name was the top ... to have absconded with $6 billion from Kazakhstan's BTA Bank.Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal - The ...
www.nytimes.com/.../cash-flowed-to-clinton-found...
Apr 23, 2015 - Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, ... In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, ... Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover.
The New York Times
One Year of Silence on Hillary Clinton Uranium Deal - Breitbart
www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/.../one-year-silence-hill...
May 1, 2016 - One Year of Silence on Hillary Clinton Uranium Deal ... company obtain a lucrative uranium mining concession from the dictator in Kazakhstan;.
Breitbart News
Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve ...
www.politifact.com/.../donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests...
Jun 30, 2016 - Among them: "Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia, ... The company in question,Uranium One, does have mines, mills ... The Kremlin was likely more interested inUranium One's assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest producer.
PolitiFact.com
Memo sheds new light on Clinton-Russia uranium scandal | Power Line
www.powerlineblog.com/.../memo-sheds-new-light-on-clinto...
Aug 26, 2016 - Giustra's goal was to buy uranium mines in Kazakhstan. ... WhenHillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to ...
Power Line
11 Items from Clinton Foundation's Dealings with Russian Uranium ...
ijr.com/.../305269-2-hillary-clinton-influence-russian-nuclear-fuel-deal-c...
The money trail from a Russian uranium tycoon to the offices of the Clinton Foundation is raising eyebrows. ... All while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of StateThese Are The Two Companies That Might Land Clinton In Hot Water ...
dailycaller.com/.../these-are-the-two-companies-that-mig...
Jul 27, 2016 - News recently broke that Hillary Clinton's foundation is under IRS ... Rosatom acquired the Canadian mining stakes, UrAsia had to obtain the vast uranium... uranium deal in Kazakhstan just days after visiting with Mr. Clinton, ...
The Daily Caller
Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company - The ...
www.newyorker.com/.../five-questions-about-the-clinto...
Apr 24, 2015 - The recent revelations about the Clinton Foundation raises some larger ... in a series of Canadian uranium-mining deals channelled money to the Clinton ... to defend its Kazakh uranium interests when a Russian firm, Rosatom, ... Telfer also said that he'd never talked about uranium with Hillary Clinton.
The New Yorker
Uranium One - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One
Uranium One is a uranium mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the ... Substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation by Giustra followed. In June
Wikipedia
How Putin's Russia Gained Control of a U.S. Uranium Mine - Bloomberg
www.bloomberg.com/.../how-putin-s-russia-gained-contr...
Apr 23, 2015 - As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a member of the committee. ... As well as Willow Creek and the Kazakhstan assets, it owns mines in ...
Bloomberg L.P.
No 'Veto Power' for Clinton on Uranium Deal - FactCheck.org
www.factcheck.org/.../no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-urani...
Apr 28, 2015 - The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as ... from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. ..
FactCheck.org
Doesn’t Clinton Embarrass Democrats?
In polite media society only Republicans are supposed to feel bad about their candidate.
Beyond policy considerations, voters across the political spectrum should consider what it would mean to ratify Mrs. Clinton’s institutionalization of political corruption. We now know from emails published by WikiLeaks that before Mrs. Clinton formally launched her campaign, she arranged for the king of Morocco to donate $12 million to Clinton Foundation programs.
What’s significant about the Morocco case is that for years the Clintons peddled the fiction that donors write checks simply to support wondrous acts of Clintonian charity. But that cover story isn’t available here. Mrs. Clinton’s trusted aide Huma Abedin put it in writing: The Moroccans agreed to the deal on the condition that Mrs. Clinton would participate at a conference in their country.
Panicked Clinton-campaign aides persuaded Mrs. Clinton to avoid such a trip before launching her candidacy—and the foundation got the king to settle for Bill and Chelsea Clinton. But the record is clear. The king wanted the access, influence and prestige that all strongmen crave from legitimate democracies.
This wasn’t the first time the Clintons satisfied such a desire while collecting megadonations. When it comes to human rights, Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, makes Morocco’s king look enlightened. In power since 1991 and never freely elected, Mr. Nazarbayev must have enjoyed the sensation of Mr. Clinton endorsing him to lead an international election-monitoring group in 2005.
The Kazakh strongman knows how to return a favor, and he granted valuable mining concessions to Clinton Foundation donors. The donors then built a global uranium powerhouse that was eventually sold to the Russians in a deal that required the 2010 approval of a U.S. government committee that included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. To put the cherry on this sundae, the Clintons violated their promise to the Obama administration by failing to publicly identify all the foundation donors.
A cache of emails, recently made public via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, exposes another fiction at the heart of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton aides have long asserted that nobody received preferential treatment from Secretary Clinton’s State Department as a result of foundation donations. Yet emails show the State Department giving special access to “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) identified by foundation staff.
WikiLeaks has revealed a draft 2011 report on Clinton Foundation governance from the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm. The document notes that the foundation had a conflict-of-interest policy for directors, officers and key employees and a separate conflict-of-interest policy for other employees. “It appears that neither policy has been implemented,” reported the lawyers.
Of course not. Conflict of interest is the Clinton business model. And political influence is the product. That’s how Hillary and Bill managed to gross more than a Rolling Stones tour by delivering speeches. Looking at how successful Mrs. Clinton and her husband were in monetizing her position as secretary of state, why would any voter, of any party, want to see how much revenue she can squeeze from the Oval Office?....................
At an early voting rally in Coconut Creek, Fla. Oct. 25. PHOTO: © SUN-SENTINEL/ZUMA PRESS
Donald Trump wears his character flaws on his sleeve. Hillary Clinton seeks to prevent documentation of hers, even when the law requires it. Yet despite her best efforts, facts about Mrs. Clinton that are now public should trouble voters more than any of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
Not that it’s easy for Republicans to appear on a ballot with Mr. Trump, especially since media folk spend days after each controversial remark demanding responses from other GOP candidates. The objective is to force them to endorse or condemn Mr. Trump and suffer the consequences.
Fair enough, but reporters don’t force down-ballot Democrats to take a position on each new Clinton email revelation. The result is wall-to-wall media coverage focused on whether GOP voters can possibly support their candidate. But why should Republicans have all the fun? Democratic voters have every right to be ashamed of their nominee.
We’ll review some of the reasons in a moment, but first let’s consider the importance of party loyalty in this year’s presidential election. In recent polls, Mr. Trump often leads among independents. But he generally trails overall because Mrs. Clinton enjoys stronger support among Democrats than Mr. Trump does among Republicans—or because pollsters don’t believe Republicans will turn out and therefore include many more Democrats than Republicans in their survey samples.
Clearly Mr. Trump needs more Republicans to support him. This could happen if holdout Republicans break his way or if some Democrats decide they can’t stomach another era of Clinton scandals.
History says it will probably have to be the former. Bill Clinton rallied his party and survived an impeachment vote in the 1990s not by disproving the charges against him, but by dedicating himself to partisan goals. Once he agreed to abandon entitlement reform, Democratic support in the Senate was rock solid.
Similarly, at the final debate last week Mrs. Clinton made no effort to embrace centrist policies. She called for higher taxes, expanded entitlements and an activist Supreme Court to impose strict limits on liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Mrs. Clinton is speaking exclusively to the left wing of her party. Mr. Trump, for his part, deviates from many Republicans on trade and immigration but has otherwise embraced a growth agenda of lower taxes and regulatory relief for an economy that sorely needs it.
Beyond policy considerations, voters across the political spectrum should consider what it would mean to ratify Mrs. Clinton’s institutionalization of political corruption. We now know from emails published by WikiLeaks that before Mrs. Clinton formally launched her campaign, she arranged for the king of Morocco to donate $12 million to Clinton Foundation programs.
What’s significant about the Morocco case is that for years the Clintons peddled the fiction that donors write checks simply to support wondrous acts of Clintonian charity. But that cover story isn’t available here. Mrs. Clinton’s trusted aide Huma Abedin put it in writing: The Moroccans agreed to the deal on the condition that Mrs. Clinton would participate at a conference in their country.
Panicked Clinton-campaign aides persuaded Mrs. Clinton to avoid such a trip before launching her candidacy—and the foundation got the king to settle for Bill and Chelsea Clinton. But the record is clear. The king wanted the access, influence and prestige that all strongmen crave from legitimate democracies.
This wasn’t the first time the Clintons satisfied such a desire while collecting megadonations. When it comes to human rights, Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, makes Morocco’s king look enlightened. In power since 1991 and never freely elected, Mr. Nazarbayev must have enjoyed the sensation of Mr. Clinton endorsing him to lead an international election-monitoring group in 2005.
The Kazakh strongman knows how to return a favor, and he granted valuable mining concessions to Clinton Foundation donors. The donors then built a global uranium powerhouse that was eventually sold to the Russians in a deal that required the 2010 approval of a U.S. government committee that included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. To put the cherry on this sundae, the Clintons violated their promise to the Obama administration by failing to publicly identify all the foundation donors.
A cache of emails, recently made public via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, exposes another fiction at the heart of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton aides have long asserted that nobody received preferential treatment from Secretary Clinton’s State Department as a result of foundation donations. Yet emails show the State Department giving special access to “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) identified by foundation staff.
WikiLeaks has revealed a draft 2011 report on Clinton Foundation governance from the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm. The document notes that the foundation had a conflict-of-interest policy for directors, officers and key employees and a separate conflict-of-interest policy for other employees. “It appears that neither policy has been implemented,” reported the lawyers.
Of course not. Conflict of interest is the Clinton business model. And political influence is the product. That’s how Hillary and Bill managed to gross more than a Rolling Stones tour by delivering speeches. Looking at how successful Mrs. Clinton and her husband were in monetizing her position as secretary of state, why would any voter, of any party, want to see how much revenue she can squeeze from the Oval Office?
Voters who wish to reject the Clintonization of America’s governing institutions have a choice on Nov. 8. They can feel good about themselves by writing in the name of a third-party candidate. Or they can do right by the country by selecting the only person who can stop the Clintons: a very flawed candidate named Donald Trump.
Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of the Journal’s editorial page.
