Tag Archives: Vladimir Putin

Let’s review how Russia colluded with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

CNN reported on a false allegation for 22 months
CNN reported on a false allegation for 22 months

For the last 22 months, we’ve seen the media keep up a constant drumbeat about how Trump colluded with Russia to sell Russian corporations uranium rights in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, wait, the media hasn’t said anything about that. So, there was an investigation, and the investigation went on forever, and found nothing.

The Federalist reports:

In a four-page letter provided to Congress on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr officially revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not find any evidence that President Donald Trump or members of his campaign treasonously colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

No collusion:

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election,” Barr’s letter to Congress noted.

No obstruction of justice:

The investigation headed by Mueller also examined whether Trump obstructed justice at any point related to ongoing investigations of Russian interference. In his letter, Barr stated that Mueller’s investigation was unable to demonstrate that the president broke the law by interfering with law enforcement.

Just to count the cost of the investigation, it was:

  • 19 lawyers
  • 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and more
  • 2,800+ subpoenas
  • 500 search warrants
  • 500 witnesses
  • over $25 MILLION in taxpayer dollars

Remember, this isn’t the first time that the media reported constantly on a story that fit their radically-leftist narrative, but then was later disproven with evidence. Remember how they breathlessly reported the charge that Brett Kavanaugh ran a secret gang rape cartel? How about when the Covington kids literally assaulted a peaceful native American who literally served overseas in Vietnam? How about the faked Jussie Smollett hate crime? This happens all the time.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton presents Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a “reset button”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presents Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a “reset button”

Here’s some collusion with Russia

Remember this article from the radically leftist New York Times?

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.

Why didn’t that get investigated for 22 months by a Special Consel duting the Obama administration? Why didn’t the mainstream news mendia report on that for 22 months ahead of the 2016 presidential election?

Obama promised Vladimir Putin "more flexibility" after the 2012 election
Obama promised Russian president Dmitri Medvedev “more flexibility” after the 2012 election

Russia colluded with Barack Obama

And speaking of collusion with Russia, how come this was never investigated:

Why didn’t actual collusion with the Russians deserve a 22-month Special Counsel investigation? Why didn’t the media run that clip for 22 months asking why Obama was colluding with the Russians? You don’t have to look very far in his foreign policy to see actual examples where we sided with the Russians against our allies, such as when Obama backed out of giving missile defense to Poland. Or when Obama stood by and did nothing after Russia ran tanks into Georgia in 2008.  Or when Obama refused to sell anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, after Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Obama’s entire foreign policy was pro-Russia! It was right there in the open.

By the way, Trump did sell 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, to defend themselves from Russia. But did the mainstream news media report on that? How exactly is selling anti-tank missiles to Russia’s enemies “collusion with Russia”?

What about Obama?

What about the Obama administration? Were they ever investigated for their many scandals?

The Obama administration running guns to Mexican drug cartels so they could call for more gun control when those guns were used to kill Border Patrol agents. Or the Obama administration using the IRS as a weapon against conservative get-out-the-vote organizations, just before his re-election campaign. And on and on. The media had nothing to say about those scandals.

Silence about Clinton-Russia scandals shows mainstream media’s bias

Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin shake hands, such a happy occasion
Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin shake hands, such a happy occasion

The leftist media has been desperately trying to find some evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, since Trump stole the election from their beloved Hillary. Nowhere is this more evident than in the media’s continuous covering up for Hillary’s Russia connections. But it’s more than just the media covering up, it’s the leftists in government, as well.

Here is the story from the center-left The Hill:

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

Do you remember who was attorney general back in 2010? That’s right, it was Eric Holder under President Barack Obama. And the Obama administration decided that this connection between Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation and Russia was not worth doing anything about. Instead, you’ll recall, the Obama administration weaponized government against conservative political groups, by targeting them for IRS sanctions. And ran assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels that were used to kill Border Patrol agents.

But that uranium scandal is not the only Clinton-Russia scandal. What about selling rights to AMERICAN uranium to the Russians?

Radically-leftist extremist Newsweek reports:

When planning a trip to Moscow for a speaking engagement in June 2010, former President Bill Clinton reportedly tried to meet with an official who was part of a Russian state-run company seeking approval to purchase a uranium company with holdings in the United States. Instead, Clinton ended up meeting Vladimir Putin.

A month prior to the trip, Clinton, whose wife, Hillary Clinton, was secretary of state at the time, asked the State Department if it had any “concerns” about a list of 15 people he intended to meet in Russia, The Hill reported Thursday, citing emails and government records.

Among them was Arkady Dvorkovich, an aide to Russia’s president at the time, Dmitri Medvedev, and a board director of Rosatom, the state-run atomic energy agency that was vying for a majority stake in Canadian company Uranium One. The company had mines in the United States, and if the deal went through, Russia would gain control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium.

The deal did win approval even though the FBI reportedly  discovered that officials in Russia’s nuclear industry were bribing an American uranium trucking company, indicating a potential national security threat.

That Uranium One deal did go through, and the Clinton Foundation got $2.35 million in donations from Russia, including $500,000 for a speaking fee for Bill Clinton. He spoke in Moscow, Russia. Uranium (used for making nuclear weapons) for cash. That’s the real Russia scandal – the one that the mainstream media has said virtually nothing about.

Newsbusters explains:

In a shock to no one, the liberal networks funded by taxpayers — PBS and NPR — have so far ignored the emerging new stories on the emerging new investigative stories on Russian involvement with the Clintons and the Obama administration. A Nexis search finds nothing there. PBS and NPR have hammered on Russia over the last two days, but only as it deals with the Trump angle.

But wait! There’s more! This isn’t even the latest Clinton-Russia scandal. Remember how the mainstream media reported on the findings of a Trump research dossier during the election? Well, did you ever ask yourself who funded that dossier?

Fox News explains:

On the same day, Oct. 4, that the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed three employees of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to testify in the Trump dossier investigation, the committee also subpoenaed TD Bank for Fusion’s bank records.

Now, according to a source familiar with the situation, Fusion has asked a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., judge to prevent the bank from complying with the subpoena.

The move comes just days after two of those three Fusion employees asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer questions about the dossier. A third subpoenaed Fusion employee, founder Glenn Simpson, has not yet appeared before the House.

The committee’s intention in sending the subpoena to TD Bank is to see if Fusion’s bank records shed light on who financed the Trump dossier. That is one of the two most important questions in the dossier investigation — the other being whether any U.S. intelligence or law enforcement agencies used the unverified dossier as a basis for surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Fusion has flatly refused to provide any information on its funding to either House or Senate investigators. The two officials refused to answer all questions from the House this week, and in an appearance before Senate Judiciary Committee investigators in August, Simpson also refused to answer the question.

It is not unprecedented for Congress to subpoena bank records. As a general rule, according to congressional investigators, banks usually comply without much fuss. But of course, this is not a routine case.

Wow, the Trump-Russia dossier creators took the fifth, rather than incriminate themselves by telling who funded it. Who could it be? Who stood to benefit most if Trump won the election? The Washington Times has reported that donations to the Clinton Foundation have dried up now that Clinton is no longer in a position of political power.

During the writing of this post, I found another scandal – this one reported in the New York Post, about Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman John Podesta. He’s involved (75,000 shares) with a company that “received $35 million from the Russian government while Clinton served as secretary of state.”

If you haven’t heard about any of these scandals, maybe that should tell you something the mainstream media’s bias against reality. All the news that fits their Democrat politics, they print.

What Putin is teaching us about foreign policy: Obama’s weakness provokes aggression

Vladimir Putin and the Clown of the United States
Vladimir Putin and the Community Organizer of the United States

Other than Weekly Standard, my two favorite places to read about foreign policy are the Wall Street Journal and the UK Telegraph. And my favorite writer from all three of these is Bret Stephens, columnist at the Wall Street Journal.

Here is his latest article (click through to WSJ), then we’ll go to the UK Telegraph after.

Stephens writes:

David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended “the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize.”

But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as “mumbo-jumbo,” “half-baked ideas,” “as-if” solutions, a willful effort to “downplay the challenges involved in the situation.” He says the critics have no answers to the questions of “what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it.”

America’s greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.

So it is with this president. It’s not enough for him to stake and defend his positions. He wants you to know that he thinks deeper, sees further, knows better, operates from a purer motive. His preferred method for dealing with disagreement is denigration. If Republicans want a tougher line in Syria, they’re warmongers.

Yes. Every time the President gives a speech on policy, you can count on him to present alternatives to his own very left-wing views as incredibly evil, incredibly stupid or both. He thinks that he knows everything, and that talking to people who disagree with him, no matter how qualified they are (e.g. – General Petraeus) would be a waste of time. Everyone who opposes his fact-free, pot-smoking, college dorm discussion view of reality is stupid or evil or both. And this man is President.

More:

For a relatively trivial investment of some jet fighters and a brigade-sized support force, Moscow extends its influence in the eastern Mediterranean, deepens a commercially and strategically productive alliance with Iran, humiliates the U.S., boosts Mr. Putin’s popularity at home, and earns a geopolitical card he can play in any number of negotiations—Ukraine, gas contracts, Mr. Assad’s political future, you name it. If things don’t work out, he can pull up stakes within a week without much loss of money, lives or prestige. It’s a perfect play.

Now let’s go to the UK Telegraph, and Matthew K. Lewis.

He writes:

Russian warplanes began bombing American-backed Syrian opposition strongholds on Wednesday, a move that can be viewed as the latest example of American humiliation abroad.

As was the case when Russians invaded Ukraine, the Russians cloaked their activity in lies.

In the former example, Russian soldiers didn’t wear uniforms, a thinly-veiled move meant to create the impression the fighters were merely Ukrainian “separatists.”

Likewise, Wednesday’s bombings ostensibly targeted Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil); in fact, the strikes were aimed at moderate rebels and civilians – part of a plan to take out any opposition to their client, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

[…]This all comes on the heels of President Barack Obama’s drawing of a “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons, only to back down when the Assad regime – by most accounts – used them.

Weakness invites provocation, and – never one to miss an opportunity to outmanoeuvre Mr Obama – Mr Putin provided a self-serving opportunity that would also allow the president to save face: Moscow would push Syria to put their chemical weapons under international control.

[…]It’s also important to note that in the wake of the red line being trampled, Russia invaded Crimea. President Obama’s legacy may be mixed, but one thing is for sure: Vladimir Putin is much more powerful and provocative than he was before Mr Obama took office, and Russia has only expanded its sphere of influence.

[…]For those paying attention, Mr Obama’s foreign policy world-view has failed.

Russia is our enemy, and they are trying to undermine us everywhere they can. Obama is meeting this challenge with the typical weakness he has shown in negotiations and stand-offs since he went on his Worldwide Bow Down To Dictators tour. His priorities seem to be to cut military spending and impose political correctness on the armed services. His latest great achievement in that regard is to nominate a gay civilian who has never served in the military to be head of the entire U.S. Army. That’s what he is most concerned about, political correctness. Not national security and not foreign policy.

Scott Walker discusses foreign policy and national security with Hugh Hewitt

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Hugh Hewitt is a horrible RINO Republican establishment guy (backed Romney), but I sometimes listen to his show.

I got this audio and transcript from Hugh Hewitt’s blog.

The MP3 file is here. (19 minutes)

And here are the relevant parts of the transcript:

HH: You mentioned today, you called it “the safety issue,” not the “national security issue,” that sort of brings, explain to people why you use that terminology.

SW: I do, because I think it’s come to the forefront not so much because “national security,” that, to me, as I said [at lunch], is on page 6A of the newspaper where only a handful of us read into that. But when people see the videos, when they see the Jordanian burned alive in a cage, when they see the Egyptian Christians who were beheaded, when they see some of these other folks from around the world, including James Foley, who went to Marquette University where my son’s a junior, and suddenly, that becomes very real to everyday Americans.

HH: One of the beheaded Islamic State videos.

SW: Absolutely, whose parents are actually from New Hampshire, not far from where I was at a weekend ago, and you just realize, you can see it on your phone, you can see it on your iPad. You don’t need the filter of the network news or the daily newspaper to tell you how bad this is. It suddenly becomes an issue of safety, because that’s not something, national security, foreign policy is something over there. Safety is something you feel inside your chest, you feel in your heart. And I think increasingly, Americans feel a sense of concern that particularly if they have family members or loved ones that ever want to travel again, they see France, they see Canada, they see other places around the world, not just the Middle East, and it’s a safety issue. And they, and then I would just add to this, as they look at this more closely, they see a president whose drawn a line in the sand and crossed it, who called ISIS just a year ago the “jayvee squad,” who called Yemen last fall a success story, who calls Iran now a place where we can do business. Think about how screwed up that is. I remember the movie in the 80s, Trading Places…

HH: Right.

SW: …you know, with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy, it’s like Iran and Israel are trading places in the sequel. In the eyes of this president, our ally is supposed to be Israel. Our adversary has been historically Iran. And yet this administration completely does it the other way around. We need to call radical Islamic terrorism for what it is, and a commander-in-chief who’s willing to act.

HH: Now I asked maybe one of your potential competitors yesterday, Senator Marco Rubio, who I know is a friend of yours.

SW: Good guy, yeah.

HH: I asked him yesterday would you disown and agreement that this president signs with Iran that leaves Iran uranium enrichment. What’s Scott Walker think about the deal, because that’s the outline, it appears?

SW: Absolutely.

HH: Would you reject that deal if you took the Oval Office?

SW: Absolutely, on Day One. I mean, to me, it is, the concept of a nuclear Iran is not only problematic for Iran, and certainly for Israel, but it opens the doors. I mean, the Saudis are next. You’re going to have plenty of others in the region. People forget that even amongst the Islamic world, there is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians. And so they’re going to want to have a nuclear weapon if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon. This is something that just escalates right before our eyes. And the fact that this administration began these discussions essentially conceding that they’re going to allow enrichment to go forward with the Iranians just shows you that they don’t have the same level of concern that I think I and Senator Rubio and many others out there have, that a nuclear Iran is a problem for the entire world, not just for Israel.

HH: Does the rising of these headlines, Saudi Arabia may be going to war with Yemen before this broadcast is over, if some of these Reuters reports are true.

SW: Right.

HH: And the Quds Force general is in Tikrit, right? So the world’s on fire. Does this hurt a governor’s claim to the presidency and elevate perhaps senators who have been there or other people who have been abroad and done that sort of thing? Or does it help you?

SW: Well, I think leadership is the fundamental ingredient that’s important in anything, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. And I won’t belittle any of the other would-be candidates. I would say, though, that my lifetime, the most significant president when it comes to foreign policy was a former governor, Ronald Reagan. The most faulty president, I would argue, when it comes to foreign policy and national security is a first term senator by the name of Barack Obama, who was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. And so, just those qualifications alone aren’t enough. Now again, I think Senator Rubio and I are very much aligned on these issues. I agree with a number of my other colleagues who might be prospective candidates should I and others get into the race in the future. What people need to look at is what do you bring to the table, who do you surround yourself with, what kind of leadership style do you have, and people, I think in this case in particularly, not just in the travels and the studies, need to know how you think. In this case, I think Americans more than anything want a commander-in-chief of the future who does a couple of things – 1) calls out radical Islamic terrorism for what it is, and says we will do whatever it takes to take the fight to them before they bring the fight to us, because unlike the Cold War, when containment was enough, when the Soviet Union and the United States could have leaders like Gorbachev and Reagan talking about containment, that’s not enough. When you have, not only with ISIS and al Qaeda, but you have an Iran, you have other places around the world groups that that want to not only annihilate Israel, but annihilate us in America, it’s like a virus. You’ve got to eradicate it. You can’t take out part of it, or it will come back.

HH: You also have people like Putin, Governor Walker…

SW: Absolutely.

HH: …who are pushing everywhere, and we’ve got Baltic allies. And people are wondering whether or not we’d actually come to their defense if Putin pushes into Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania. What do you think?

SW: We absolutely have to. I mean, NATO is the strongest military alliance we’ve had in history. It was part of, through Reagan’s leadership, but certainly part of the ingredient that allowed us to win the Cold War without firing a shot. If we don’t defend NATO members in a scenario like that, now I think we preempt that by showing strength in even dealing with Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, but is very much geographically aligned with what we’re talking about. Remember, Putin isn’t just aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. He’s a nationalist. He believes in the history of Russia and the old Soviet Union. Part of what you see here is the old Lenin adage that you probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you proceed. If you find steel, you withdraw. Well, in Ukraine, he’s found mush, and he’s found mush not only from the United States, but from others like, others and NATO partners out there. If it were to extend, and my belief is we need a president who’s going to act aggressively by giving lethal force to the Ukrainians and others to try to preempt that from happening. But a couple of weeks ago, I met with the president of Estonia. Certainly, we saw a week ago the Lithuanian leadership is literally giving out literature telling their own citizens what to do if Russians invade. Latvia, I just talked to someone the other day whose mother immigrated here from Latvia, and in each of those Baltic states, there are real serious concerns about what happens if we don’t deal with this in Ukraine. We need American leadership not just for America’s sake, but for the world.

If you find that interesting, listen to the whole thing or read the transcript. He also talks about education reform, if you’re into that. I am.

We don’t talk much about foreign policy as Christians, but it is important for us to understand it in order to promote the good, and achieve good results. We can’t just be led by our feelings, we have to do what works, and that requires understanding how the world works.

Obama to Ukraine: if you like your Crimea, you can keep your Crimea

Stephen F. Hayes explains (in the Weekly Standard) how screwed we really are with the Democrats running our foreign policy.

Excerpt:

On February 23, five days before Russia invaded Ukraine, National Security Adviser Susan Rice appeared on Meet the Press and shrugged off suggestions that Russia was preparing any kind of military intervention: “It’s in nobody’s interest to see violence returned and the situation escalate.” A return to a “Cold War construct” isn’t necessary, Rice insisted, because such thinking “is long out of date” and “doesn’t reflect the realities of the 21st century.” Even if Vladimir Putin sees the world this way, Rice argued, it is “not in the United States’ interests” to do so.

Wow, I’m shocked that the Youtube video caused Benghazi liar didn’t see the invasion of Ukraine coming.

But it’s not just her:

On February 28, Russian troops poured into Ukraine. As they did, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Kerry briefed reporters after their talk, plainly unaware of the developments on the ground. Kerry said that Russia wants to help Ukraine with its economic problems. Lavrov had told him “that they are prepared to be engaged and be involved in helping to deal with the economic transition that needs to take place at this point.”

Hours later, television screens across the world displayed images of Russian soldiers infiltrating Crimea and Russian artillery rolling through Sevastopol. Obama administration officials told CNN’s Barbara Starr that the incursion was not “an invasion” but an “uncontested arrival” and that this distinction was “key” to understanding the new developments.

Oh yes! Just like Hitler was helping out Poland with their economic problems.

Why is this happening? Well, a better question would be, why didn’t it happen sooner:

For five years, the Obama administration has chosen to see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. In this fantasy world, the attack in Fort Hood is “workplace violence.” The Christmas Day bomber is an “isolated extremist.” The attempted bombing in Times Square is a “one-off” attack. The attacks in Benghazi are a “spontaneous” reaction to a YouTube video. Al Qaeda is on the run. Bashar al-Assad is a “reformer.” The Iranian regime can be sweet-talked out of its nuclear weapons program. And Vladimir Putin is a new, post-Cold War Russian leader.

This foreign policy failure didn’t come from nowhere. There’s a whole list of failures that made Putin believe that the Democrats are weak on foreign policy.

Look:

Let me be clear. When Obama halted the scheduled missile defense shield in Europe, that was the end of Ukrainian sovereignty. We have to understand that Democrats are not just totally inept at fiscal policy and on social issues. They are also horrible at foreign policy. How many screw-ups must we witness before we understand that these people are not serious, and we shouldn’t be electing them?