Hillary, American Uranium for Russian Money, Tax Fraud.....

[Palmguy]

So, this happened:


At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?smid=tw-nytimes

I'm sure those 30,000 e-mails that were deleted from Hillary's private e-mail server (while they were under subpoena) really were just about yoga classes and wedding plans though...


Oh, and also this:


Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors* in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/23/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

*: "Errors" = Reporting zero donations from foreign governments since 2010 while actually receiving "tens of millions of dollars"**.

**: "Tens of millions of dollars" = $122.5M in 2009.

[BaiHu]

Tip of the iceberg with our government, I'm sure. The Clintons just finally pissed off enough of their colleagues.

[Palmguy]

Most importantly:

http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii551/PalmguyFL/hillary_zpsetoqdzyt.jpg

[BaiHu]

Yes, there's that too.

[RoyGBiv]

Was just reading this story this morning.
When a Democrat has lost the NYT, that says something.

Still, I wouldn't count her out. She has more lives than a cat.

[LostDuke]

Most importantly:

http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii551/PalmguyFL/hillary_zpsetoqdzyt.jpg

A few things have to happen for you to be wrong, among which that newspapers keep digging what is surely a huge dirt mine, and that we can put together a good candidate in earnest. A bloody prolonged primary will give her a huge lead and dissipate the effect of some of those early discoveries.

There are plenty more yoga classes where this came from, but people forget fast.

[Dagga Boy]

Hilary in 2016....Free Hilary phones!which will be like an iPhone 7......winner in a landslide.

[Jeep]

The NYT might be reporting this because it no longer thinks she is left-wing enough, but there is little chance that this will get much traction in the press. Maybe a hard-to-follow one-time recitation on the nightly news and then it will disappear.

After all, in the end, most of the media would rather have a corrupt, lying, cheating left-winger in power than someone who favors, for example, the 2nd amendment.

[Tamara]

The NYT might be reporting this because it no longer thinks she is left-wing enough, but there is little chance that this will get much traction in the press. Maybe a hard-to-follow one-time recitation on the nightly news and then it will disappear.

She's been catching a lot of flack from the left-leaning media on the Sunday morning talking head shows and NPR for some time now.

Those in the Foxbaugh bubble probably haven't yet picked up the vibe that she's the Left's McCain, but it's definitely there. The undertone of her campaign thus far is "Seriously, who else are you gonna vote for?" and that never caucuses well. She's even more vulnerable to a primary challenge from her own Left this time around than she was the last time she was Inevitable.

[Totem Polar]

She's even more vulnerable to a primary challenge from her own Left this time around than she was the last time she was Inevitable.

There is that.

[Tamara]

There is that.

If the Dems run a My Turn party insider like Clinton or Biden, the general election is the GOP's to lose. I have faith that they can drop the ball, though. Look at who they ran against a wobbly incumbent in '12. :rolleyes:

[Joe in PNG]

There's a Sports Illustrated Cover type jinx for the preseason presidential frontrunner, it seems.

[MDS]

I'd rather have a bold-faced Hillary, unrepentantly corrupt, driven by very human greed and powerlust, than the laureled Obama - who is either inhumanly evil and deceitful, or else driven by prophetic visions of what might be and a willingness to utter any lie, and inflict any price, to achieve it.

The Republicans need to run a candidate that offers the right-leaning flavor of "hope and change," though, if they want to win. There's a couple of candidates who offer that, so they have the raw material to work with, but I'm not sure they're capable of that yet.

What I'd really like to see is Hillary vs McCain. Worst turnout ever, and third party percentages through the roof!

[RoyGBiv]

Hillary v Christie would be equally terrible.

[Totem Polar]

^^^No shit, because one of them might end up in office.

[GardoneVT]

As to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Samuel L Jackson captures my thoughts perfectly:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ejui5mblwk

[LostDuke]

I'd rather have a bold-faced Hillary, unrepentantly corrupt, driven by very human greed and powerlust, than the laureled Obama - who is either inhumanly evil and deceitful, or else driven by prophetic visions of what might be and a willingness to utter any lie, and inflict any price, to achieve it.

The Republicans need to run a candidate that offers the right-leaning flavor of "hope and change," though, if they want to win. There's a couple of candidates who offer that, so they have the raw material to work with, but I'm not sure they're capable of that yet.

What I'd really like to see is Hillary vs McCain. Worst turnout ever, and third party percentages through the roof!

Who do you think are those two?

[TCinVA]

The Republicans need to run a candidate that offers the right-leaning flavor of "hope and change," though, if they want to win.


I think I know what you're driving at, but "hope and change" was a load of utter bullshit from the getgo, full of idiocy, ridiculous promises, and breathtaking malfeasance. I don't really want the right-leaning version of that. I just want a sane, reasonable human being who is going to reduce the size and scope of government function.

We should have had enough experience by this point at what happens with a marketed messiah that hopefully we never vote for another one.

Decent marketing, absolutely. But the hopey-changey bullshit we can live without.

[RoyGBiv]

Decent marketing, absolutely. But the hopey-changey bullshit we can live without.

Agree. Hope is not a plan.
Anyone can hope. Not anyone can accomplish.
When you start mistaking wishes for tactics, you get what we have now.

Do I "hope" we can end war. Well, who the hell doesn't?

[MDS]

I don't really want the right-leaning version of [hope and change bullshit]. I just want a sane, reasonable human being who is going to reduce the size and scope of government function.

We should have had enough experience by this point at what happens with a marketed messiah that hopefully we never vote for another one.

LOL. That's exactly what I'm saying - "hope" that a candidate will be "different" this time. I think what you're feeling here is a pretty popular thought. So the R's need to field someone who taps into that. I just don't know if the R's are in tune with the people enough to really realize it, nor do I think they have enough faith in the miracle of marketing to tap into it.

Now, if you actually believe that whoever gets elected will actually live up to the campaign promises - if you think for one second that anyone with a snowball's chance isn't just saying whatever they think they need to, with exactly zero regard for their beliefs or positions - then you are a better, more trusting man than I. Anytime I catch myself telling myself that some campaign promise sounds promising, I admonish myself: "we are men of action. Fairy tales do not become us." Shedding the lies isn't comfortable. I live with myself by voting for libertarian-leaning R's in the primaries, and voting L whenever I have the chance, and in the meantime keeping popcorn ready for chaos-and-mayhem shit-show that ensues when any third party gets too many votes to ignore.


Who do you think are those two?

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio. Needs work, mind you, but I think the raw material is there for a solid makeover. They'll never use the phrase "hope and change," but I've seen people moved to tears by Rubio's announcement speech. That's not a bad start.

[Tamara]

I just want a sane, reasonable human being who is going to reduce the size and scope of government function.

I want a gold house and a rocket car.

[RoyGBiv]

I want a gold house and a rocket car.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmeUuoxyt_E

[GardoneVT]

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio. Needs work, mind you, but I think the raw material is there for a solid makeover. They'll never use the phrase "hope and change," but I've seen people moved to tears by Rubio's announcement speech. That's not a bad start.

Crux of the issue right here.

Picking the next President of the United States should not be done on an emotional basis.That wont stop most of the participating electorate from doing so, which means no matter the surname or gender of the 2016 election winner the end result is the same .Minus one detail-a GOP White House wont get a free pass from the progressive press when it comes to scandals.

[Jeep]

She's been catching a lot of flack from the left-leaning media on the Sunday morning talking head shows and NPR for some time now.

Those in the Foxbaugh bubble probably haven't yet picked up the vibe that she's the Left's McCain, but it's definitely there. The undertone of her campaign thus far is "Seriously, who else are you gonna vote for?" and that never caucuses well. She's even more vulnerable to a primary challenge from her own Left this time around than she was the last time she was Inevitable.

Yeah, but who do they have? Martin O'Malley? Keep in mind that in the end the bulk of the Dem "base"--the unions, the government employees etc.--doesn't care about who they elect as much as the fact they elect someone who will keep the money rolling in. They might want to elect Bernie Sanders (or Hillary as she was in 1993). More than a few would like to elect Fidel Castro or Leon Trotsky. But in the end of the day they need someone who will keep the money coming and Hillary will keep the money coming.

[Jeep]

If the Dems run a My Turn party insider like Clinton or Biden, the general election is the GOP's to lose. I have faith that they can drop the ball, though. Look at who they ran against a wobbly incumbent in '12. :rolleyes:

The idea of Joe Biden near the nuclear button is pretty terrifying. But old Joe would certainly like having Air Force One all for himself without having to get anyone's permission. As for the GOP, I think it is pretty much guaranteed they will nominate a less-than-inspiring candidate.

[MDS]

The idea of Joe Biden near the nuclear button is pretty terrifying.

Again, I'd be more afraid of Hillary near that button. I'm sure there's a fully developed plan to drill through glass and operate oil wells in radioactive areas. But I bet Hillary likes that plan.

[Jeep]

Again, I'd be more afraid of Hillary near that button. I'm sure there's a fully developed plan to drill through glass and operate oil wells in radioactive areas. But I bet Hillary likes that plan.


I have little doubt that if Hillary gets control of Congress and has 5 sure votes on the Supreme Court that she would happily exile me to the new re-education labor camps in North Dakota, and might be willing to launch a nuke at them if the inmates get out of control.

But Joe? Joe won't set up re-education camps, but he very well might get it into his head that we need to invade Ukraine to secure the oil fields from ISIS, and subject it to a pre-invasion nuclear bombardment. (And when told there are no significant oil fields in Ukraine, he'd flash his grin, shrug and say "I was misinformed. Where should we go next?") Never underestimate Joe's serious lack of grey matter.

[farscott]

Interesting opinion piece on how once again the media and the country have pretty much ignored the Clinton cash machinations: http://theweek.com/articles/552050/hillary-clinton-soft-corruption-low-expectations

My favorite snippet:


The foundation itself isn't exactly aces, either. A study of foundation tax records by The Federalist showed that only 15 percent of its revenue between 2009 and 2012 went to direct grants to charitable works. In 2013, after Hillary Clinton left the State Department and began to work on a presidential campaign, the number dropped to a 6.4 percent, giving out just $9 million from revenues of $140 million, and spending almost the same amount on travel expenses alone. Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its watch list, and the Sunlight Foundation's Bill Allison bluntly stated, "It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons."

You might expect the national media to press the Clintons for answers. And many — like The New York Times — are. Others, however, seem more determined to demand answers from Schweizer.

[RoyGBiv]

The damn Dame has a crack.

'Out-of-control family affair': Experts question Clinton Foundation's true charitable spending (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/29/trickle-down-experts-question-clinton-foundation-true-charitable-spending/)


The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

“That claim is demonstrably false, and it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim,” said Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

2013 revenue: ~148.9 million
2013 grants: ~8.9 million
2013 Salaries & other comp: ~29.9 million

8.9/148.9 = 6% (5.98)