Filed under: Politics | Tags: Cash for Clintons, Clinton Scandals, Uranium for Russia
Once again, it’s that great political question: Ethics vs. Graft. Each day there are new revelations about Hillary Clinton’s behavior during her tenure as Secretary of State, and after. The questions will continue, and she needs to start answering.
Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book Clinton Cash clearly suggests that Hillary Clinton may have engaged in corrupt behavior while in office. Even the left-wing media is taking notice of a leading Democrat’s ethical lapses. The New York Times took up the story today headlined:” Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” fact checking the Schweizer story. Peter Schweizer is not some obscure right-wing flack, but a noted Scholar at the Hoover Institution, who must be taken seriously. Here’s the gist:
That while Clinton was secretary of state, a federal committee approved the $610 million sale of Wyoming-based uranium mines to Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom, as it tried to corner the market for the radioactive mineral.
Clinton’s State Department was one of those that approved the deal. That’s not illegal, but there’s a conflict: The chairman of Uranium One, the Canadian company that sold the uranium mines to Russia, was Ian Telfer, who gave $2.4 million to the Clinton Foundation.
That’s not all. The New York Times notes that a Russian investment bank that was behind the deal paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.
It also should be noted that the Wyoming mine is no small operation, and that Rosatom makes nuclear weapons, among other things. So national security is at stake.
There’s more. Beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation told the IRS for three years that it got nothing from foreign or U.S. governments. In previous years, it had reported tens of millions of dollars. Judicial Watch says it has received 126 pages of State Department documents that relate to possible conflicts of interest were the Secretary of State accepted funds from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran. among others.
Then there were the questions about Hillary’s emails as Secretary, the private server in her home, and it coincidentally being scrubbed clean. There are questions about Benghazi and why our Ambassador to Libya could not get the security he requested, and questions about what he was doing in Benghazi in the first place and why help never came.
There are going to be lots and lots of questions., but this one looks bad, really bad.
At the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel notes that the Clintons are predictable. Their consistent lack of ethics and stock response when caught — is a constant.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial “Quid Pro Clinton” says that Democrats who expect Bill and Hillary to change are delusional. Their adventures in the uranium trade recall nothing as much as Tammany Hall’s concept of “honest graft.” James Taranto is funnier.
At Powerline Steven Hayward and each of their lawyers have much to say.
John Podhoretz writing at Commentary points out that this is a wake-up call for the Democrats, but not the one we might expect. The classic Clinton dodges aren’t going to work so well this time, and Democratic party health is an open question. A poll today said that a majority of the American people believe they cannot trust Hillary.
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment