this is a opinion page but you will like this.
DAVE NEESE: Speaking of collusion with the Rooskies ... Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton
By Dave Neese, Columnist Posted: 05/22/17, 10:27 PM EDT
If liberals are lucky, the various investigations now in progress will make the case that the diabolical Vladimir Putin arranged for Hillary Clinton to lose the Electoral-College vote and suckered Donald Trump into being Russia’s stooge and agent.
If the probes fall short of that objective, however, disappointed liberals may have to be put on suicide watch.
Right now, though, the cohort that proudly describes itself as “progressive” (to distinguish itself from inferior “deplorables”) is buoyed by hope.
The media and “resistance” wing of the Democratic Party are abuzz in excited anticipation that the probes are on the verge of delivering the goods. Among anti-Trump hysterics, uncontainable, glee has surpassed the pee-your-pants point.
When the truth comes out, will it show that Putin beamed messages to the tooth fillings of voters in outback Pennsylvania and persuaded them not to vote Clinton, as they were about to do, but vote Trump instead? Were these voters wearing tinfoil hats that made them more receptive to such communications?
Were the Kremlin mind-controllers likewise able to persuade the Bible- and gun-clingers of Michigan and Wisconsin to dump politics’ version of Mother Teresa and Madame Curie for a loutish rake and tacky real estate hustler like Trump? The anti-Trump hysterics are telling themselves: “Yes, by golly! Absolutely!”
In due time, then, perhaps we’ll learn why Vladimir Vladimirovich chose to hand Trump the electoral vote but held back the popular vote. Did Trump’s new best bud Volodya promise to deliver the popular vote next time, in exchange the locations of America’s Trident submarine force?
Fellow Americans, true patriots in these times must not put limits on their suspicions. There’s no such thing as excessive paranoia given that twice, 2008 and 2016, a candidate of Hillary Clinton’s obvious superiority got a thumbs-down from a developmentally disabled electorate of yahoo ’Mercans.
Besides, it’s not paranoia if somebody’s actually out to get you, as the damn Rooskies are said to clearly be. We should have listened to the John Birch Society. Democrats surely now regret the way they lampooned the Birchers as a bunch of whacked-out Looney Tuners.
Them damn Rooskies may be even more sinister sumbeeches than the Republicans tried to tell us they were back in the Cold War days of Falling Dominoes and State Department Commie infestations.
Despite Trump’s pronounced tendency to blabber first and think later — much later, if at all — the hope now permeating progressive circles is that Trump is about to be exposed as — if not a Putin stooge — then a fiendishly clever conspiratorial mastermind of Byzantine foreign intrigues.
It may seem to some to be a long, long, long shot that the probes of Trump will hit political pay dirt. But in the progressive milieus, they’re crossing their fingers and muttering prayers (despite their official agnosticism).
In seeking to put Trump’s head on a pike, maybe the investigations will stumble across the answers to other incidental but nevertheless nagging questions.
Why were the various, massive, overlapping, “intelligence community” bureaucracies of the United States not able to anticipate and thwart Russia’s election shenanigans? What are we paying these bureaucracies a king’s ransom in tax receipts to do, anyway?
And given the keen interest Democrats are suddenly evincing in safeguarding U.S. channels of communication from subversive foreign meddling, here’s another question:
Why was there previously such widespread indifference among Democrats to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vulnerable, recklessly insecure — if not also outright illegal — off-the-grid email system?
In any event, the investigative bloodhounds are now reported to be baying and snuffling as they pick up the scent of Trump’s collusive arrangements with the Putin regime.
But are Democrats really sure they want bloodhounds barking down this trail? Can the investigations flush out anything close to matching Bill & Hillary’s — and Barack’s — own collusion-reeking interactions with the Evil Empire of the Russ?
Remember when Obama, thinking the microphones were off, leaned in and whispered in Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s ear that after his reelection he’d have “more flexibility” to accommodate Russia’s concerns regarding such matters as anti-missile-defense initiatives Eastern Europe?
And remember the uranium caper?
This earlier episode of U.S. footsie with the Kremlin is a saga worthy of a recap, especially in light of current fretting over Russia’s ability to manipulate pliable — or plain dumb — American voters.
It may come as a shock for some to hear that the Obama administration during its time in power didn’t actually spend all of its days walking on water or performing other such miraculous, biblical-like feats. There were, on occasion, more humdrum matters it had to attend to.
One such matter was what to do about the aforementioned villainous Rooskies when they moved to attain a significant stake in America’s uranium mines, mines which were officially listed as strategic national security assets. The ultimate decision turned out to be: Do nothing. Just let it happen.
As recounted by the New York Times and “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer, this sleazy saga began in 2005 with a company named UrAsia Energy.
UrAsia moved to take over uranium mines in Kazakhstan. Bill Clinton flew there with UrAsia’s Frank Guistra and helped him persuade Kazakhstan’s strongman ruler to consent to a uranium mine deal.
As so often proves to have been the case, there was a little something in it for the Clintons. Guistra gave $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and made a $100-million pledge to the Clinton “Sustainable-Growth Initiative
.”
Bill Clinton squints one eye and wags his finger just the way he did when he said he did not have sex with “that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” He indignantly objects there was no quid pro quo, none whatsoever. And that it’s outrageous even to hint there might have been.
In any event, continuing the Times/”Clinton Cash” narrative, shortly after the Kazakhstan deal, UrAsia Energy was absorbed by a South Africa-based company named Uranium One. And Uranium One began to acquire mining holdings in the United States.
A foundation with ties to Uranium One gave a $2.35 million donation to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation. (The donation went undisclosed, in violation of an agreement Hillary Clinton had made with President Obama upon becoming Secretary of State.)
Meanwhile, starting in 2009, a Russian company — Rosatom — had begun to acquire gradually increasing stakes in Uranium One. In 2013, Rosatom moved to take a 51 percent, controlling interest.
Because of Uranium One’s American mines — a strategic national security asset — the Rosatom takeover required the nod of the Obama administration. A government panel including the State Department — then headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — gave its assent.
The nod handed Rosatom — and, by extension, Putin and the Kremlin — control of one-fifth of America’s uranium production capacity.
But wait, that’s not all. There’s more sleaze, as there so often seems to be in any story involving the Clintons.
Shortly after Rosatom began to make its move to take control of Uranium One, Bill Clinton was the guest in Moscow of a Putin-connected investment bank. The bank had been involved in promoting Uranium One stock. It paid Bill Clinton a phenomenal, eyebrow-raising $500,000 “fee” for a single speech.
Bill wags that famous “I-did-not-have-sex” finger again. No quid pro quo, he insists, absolutely none, outrageous to think otherwise, etc.
So we come down to this question: Can Trump’s suspected connivance with the Kremlin equal, or even come close to matching, the the foul odor wafting off the Clintons-Obama uranium caper?
Maybe. You never know. But that caper does seem to set the bar mighty high.
source
http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/MP/20170522/NEWS/170529951
DAVE NEESE: Speaking of collusion with the Rooskies ... Let’s talk about Hillary Clinton
By Dave Neese, Columnist Posted: 05/22/17, 10:27 PM EDT
If liberals are lucky, the various investigations now in progress will make the case that the diabolical Vladimir Putin arranged for Hillary Clinton to lose the Electoral-College vote and suckered Donald Trump into being Russia’s stooge and agent.
If the probes fall short of that objective, however, disappointed liberals may have to be put on suicide watch.
Right now, though, the cohort that proudly describes itself as “progressive” (to distinguish itself from inferior “deplorables”) is buoyed by hope.
The media and “resistance” wing of the Democratic Party are abuzz in excited anticipation that the probes are on the verge of delivering the goods. Among anti-Trump hysterics, uncontainable, glee has surpassed the pee-your-pants point.
When the truth comes out, will it show that Putin beamed messages to the tooth fillings of voters in outback Pennsylvania and persuaded them not to vote Clinton, as they were about to do, but vote Trump instead? Were these voters wearing tinfoil hats that made them more receptive to such communications?
Were the Kremlin mind-controllers likewise able to persuade the Bible- and gun-clingers of Michigan and Wisconsin to dump politics’ version of Mother Teresa and Madame Curie for a loutish rake and tacky real estate hustler like Trump? The anti-Trump hysterics are telling themselves: “Yes, by golly! Absolutely!”
In due time, then, perhaps we’ll learn why Vladimir Vladimirovich chose to hand Trump the electoral vote but held back the popular vote. Did Trump’s new best bud Volodya promise to deliver the popular vote next time, in exchange the locations of America’s Trident submarine force?
Fellow Americans, true patriots in these times must not put limits on their suspicions. There’s no such thing as excessive paranoia given that twice, 2008 and 2016, a candidate of Hillary Clinton’s obvious superiority got a thumbs-down from a developmentally disabled electorate of yahoo ’Mercans.
Besides, it’s not paranoia if somebody’s actually out to get you, as the damn Rooskies are said to clearly be. We should have listened to the John Birch Society. Democrats surely now regret the way they lampooned the Birchers as a bunch of whacked-out Looney Tuners.
Them damn Rooskies may be even more sinister sumbeeches than the Republicans tried to tell us they were back in the Cold War days of Falling Dominoes and State Department Commie infestations.
Despite Trump’s pronounced tendency to blabber first and think later — much later, if at all — the hope now permeating progressive circles is that Trump is about to be exposed as — if not a Putin stooge — then a fiendishly clever conspiratorial mastermind of Byzantine foreign intrigues.
It may seem to some to be a long, long, long shot that the probes of Trump will hit political pay dirt. But in the progressive milieus, they’re crossing their fingers and muttering prayers (despite their official agnosticism).
In seeking to put Trump’s head on a pike, maybe the investigations will stumble across the answers to other incidental but nevertheless nagging questions.
Why were the various, massive, overlapping, “intelligence community” bureaucracies of the United States not able to anticipate and thwart Russia’s election shenanigans? What are we paying these bureaucracies a king’s ransom in tax receipts to do, anyway?
And given the keen interest Democrats are suddenly evincing in safeguarding U.S. channels of communication from subversive foreign meddling, here’s another question:
Why was there previously such widespread indifference among Democrats to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vulnerable, recklessly insecure — if not also outright illegal — off-the-grid email system?
In any event, the investigative bloodhounds are now reported to be baying and snuffling as they pick up the scent of Trump’s collusive arrangements with the Putin regime.
But are Democrats really sure they want bloodhounds barking down this trail? Can the investigations flush out anything close to matching Bill & Hillary’s — and Barack’s — own collusion-reeking interactions with the Evil Empire of the Russ?
Remember when Obama, thinking the microphones were off, leaned in and whispered in Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s ear that after his reelection he’d have “more flexibility” to accommodate Russia’s concerns regarding such matters as anti-missile-defense initiatives Eastern Europe?
And remember the uranium caper?
This earlier episode of U.S. footsie with the Kremlin is a saga worthy of a recap, especially in light of current fretting over Russia’s ability to manipulate pliable — or plain dumb — American voters.
It may come as a shock for some to hear that the Obama administration during its time in power didn’t actually spend all of its days walking on water or performing other such miraculous, biblical-like feats. There were, on occasion, more humdrum matters it had to attend to.
One such matter was what to do about the aforementioned villainous Rooskies when they moved to attain a significant stake in America’s uranium mines, mines which were officially listed as strategic national security assets. The ultimate decision turned out to be: Do nothing. Just let it happen.
As recounted by the New York Times and “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer, this sleazy saga began in 2005 with a company named UrAsia Energy.
UrAsia moved to take over uranium mines in Kazakhstan. Bill Clinton flew there with UrAsia’s Frank Guistra and helped him persuade Kazakhstan’s strongman ruler to consent to a uranium mine deal.
As so often proves to have been the case, there was a little something in it for the Clintons. Guistra gave $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and made a $100-million pledge to the Clinton “Sustainable-Growth Initiative
.”
Bill Clinton squints one eye and wags his finger just the way he did when he said he did not have sex with “that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” He indignantly objects there was no quid pro quo, none whatsoever. And that it’s outrageous even to hint there might have been.
In any event, continuing the Times/”Clinton Cash” narrative, shortly after the Kazakhstan deal, UrAsia Energy was absorbed by a South Africa-based company named Uranium One. And Uranium One began to acquire mining holdings in the United States.
A foundation with ties to Uranium One gave a $2.35 million donation to the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation. (The donation went undisclosed, in violation of an agreement Hillary Clinton had made with President Obama upon becoming Secretary of State.)
Meanwhile, starting in 2009, a Russian company — Rosatom — had begun to acquire gradually increasing stakes in Uranium One. In 2013, Rosatom moved to take a 51 percent, controlling interest.
Because of Uranium One’s American mines — a strategic national security asset — the Rosatom takeover required the nod of the Obama administration. A government panel including the State Department — then headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — gave its assent.
The nod handed Rosatom — and, by extension, Putin and the Kremlin — control of one-fifth of America’s uranium production capacity.
But wait, that’s not all. There’s more sleaze, as there so often seems to be in any story involving the Clintons.
Shortly after Rosatom began to make its move to take control of Uranium One, Bill Clinton was the guest in Moscow of a Putin-connected investment bank. The bank had been involved in promoting Uranium One stock. It paid Bill Clinton a phenomenal, eyebrow-raising $500,000 “fee” for a single speech.
Bill wags that famous “I-did-not-have-sex” finger again. No quid pro quo, he insists, absolutely none, outrageous to think otherwise, etc.
So we come down to this question: Can Trump’s suspected connivance with the Kremlin equal, or even come close to matching, the the foul odor wafting off the Clintons-Obama uranium caper?
Maybe. You never know. But that caper does seem to set the bar mighty high.
source
http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/MP/20170522/NEWS/170529951
