Monday, May 29

Which Candidate should Russia have backed?

Which candidate should Russia have backed?

PThere was sufficient concern among Democrats (I call them by their more appropriate name—secular humanists), the left-leaning media (pardon the redundancy) and several Rino Republicans about the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to cause the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. Of course, the suspicion has been postulated time and again by each of the above-mentioned groups (let’s call them ‘the Big 3’) that President Donald Trump possibly colluded with the Russian government to somehow affect the outcome of the election.

To date, there have been numerous allegations made by ‘unnamed sources’, but nothing of evidentiary value has been produced, despite the best efforts of the Big 3. Someone from the Trump campaign, according to ‘unnamed sources, both inside and outside the current administration ’, was in contact with a Russian official for some unspecified but undoubtedly nefarious reason, and the Special Prosecutor must investigate the matter.
Surely, the reasoning goes, Trump’s team would have no other reason to contact anybody in Russia except to solicit their assistance in helping Trump win the election, or to break the law in one way or the other.

Many of the Big 3 have concluded that Russia hacked the Democrat National Committee emails and afforded that information to Julian Assange of Wikileaks, who made all that information available to the American public. Never mind that Assange has steadfastly denied the Russians had any involvement and has indeed stated he obtained the emails from someone associated directly with the DNC. It is noteworthy that the truth of the content of those leaked emails has never been challenged—only the identity of the leaker. So when Hillary blames the Russians and Trump—highly unlikely sources, particularly in tandem—for the leaks, she is in essence admitting that everything in those emails  . . . Is absolutely true. Typical Clinton—it’s not my fault, it’s the fault of those who told the truth about me.

An aside to illustrate the fuzziness of Big 3 thinking; How is it that the Russians obtained everything from the DNC emails, but were never successful in penetrating the highly secure private server, admittedly kept in a broom closet somewhere in Colorado, on which Hillary Clinton conducted State Department business? We have not only her word but that of former president Barack Obama that no secure information on Hillary’s private server was ever compromised.

Have the Big 3 built a convincing case that the Russians would have chosen Donald Trump as their choice to lead the American government as opposed to his rival, Hillary Clinton?

What has Trump done, aside from welcoming Russian assistance in wiping out ISIS, to persuade the Russians that he would be an easy mark? No, not what has he been accused of doing, but what has he provably done that was in the best interests of Russia?

Well, what about Hillary? Has she or any of her campaign team done anything that could possibly benefit the Russians?

There are a couple of things that have escaped the attention or interest of the Big 3. 

One is the fact that the head of Hillary’s campaign, John Podesta, in 2011 was made a board member of a small energy company called Joule, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Two months after his appointment, a Russian investment company called RUSNANO (a business started in 2007 by VLADIMIR PUTIN; “Putin’s Child”) invested one billion rubles in Joule. Why?

According to State Department cables leaked via Wikileaks, technology venture funds like Rusnano were considered a national security concern by U.S. officials because they could serve a “dual use” in their investments. That is, their investments in civilian technologies could have a military application.
In short, John Podesta was business partners with the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. When John Podesta went to the White House in January 2014 to serve as counselor to President Obama, he failed to disclose his board membership in one of the Joule entities on his financial disclosure form. According to the Podesta emails, Podesta transferred his 75,000 shares in the company to an LLC controlled by his family. But as the Wall Street Journal notes, the Podesta emails reveal he remained actively engaged in company business after that fact.

That’s interesting. The Director of Hillary’s campaign had more than a casual relationship with a company of undoubted interest to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Secondly, in 2005, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan with a mine owner named Frank Giustra in Giustra’s private jet. With Clinton’s help, Giustra was successful in purchasing 17% of Khazakztan’s uranium.  Giustra, who later reformed his  company (now called Uranium One) also procured uranium concessions in the United States; approximately twenty percent (20%) of American production .

One can hardly blame the Russian website ‘Pravda’ (sound familiar?) for trumpeting, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World”. That 2013 article told how Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, had taken over a Canadian company, thereby becoming one of the world’s largest producers of uranium.

The New York Times—hardly a conservative rag—published an article in 2015 noting, “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton (aka Bill) received  $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was at that time promoting Uranium One stock.”

With all the assistance the Clinton’s provided the Russians in obtaining American uranium, it might appear as though Putin had more to gain from a Clinton presidency than a Trump administration.

By the way, did the transfer of control of 20% of American uranium production to a foreign entity require the approval of the State Department? In a word, yes. However, a spokesman for the Clinton Presidential campaign said, and I quote, “(no one) has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

What prompted that statement issued by Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon?

It could have been the fact that Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million,and promised $100 million more, to the Clinton Foundation after the deal Bill Clinton helped facilitate to purchase uranium from Kazakhstan. Members of the Uranium One Company contributed a total of $245 million to the Clinton Foundation. The money did not go directly into Ms. Clinton’s bank account. It was donated to the Clinton Foundation, of which she is only one of three principals. The other two are her husband Bill and her daughter Chelsea. D

Ah . . . There’s nothing to see here . . . move along. Especially when you have all those ubiquitous “unnamed” sources telling you they are sure that Donald J Trump made a deal with the Russians. They cannot provide—ah—“a shred of evidence”, but they are sure that something treasonous happened. Now, that’s hot stuff! One can easily see why the Justice Department would have to assign at least a thousand FBI Agents to investigate hot ‘rumors’ like that! 

No comments:

RINO Blog Watch (Blog)

RINO Forum - User Submitted News

RINO Forum - Elections

Recent Posts

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Views (since Blogger started counting)

Blog Archives

Follow by Email - Widget 13

Click Here To Become A Conservative Blogs Central Blogger

Back to TOP