You sure about that?
"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.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
So, taking Russian money to build buildings is somehow worse than taking payoffs from Russians who now control 1/5 of all uranium production capacity in the US? Not to mention lying about it and not declaring the donations.
How about Columbia?
"The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement dates back to 2004 and was first negotiated by former President George W. Bush's administration. In 2008,
Bush gave the Democratic Congress, which opposed the deal, a 90-day ultimatum to approve it, arguing that ratification would "advance America's national security interests in a critical region" and "strengthen a courageous ally in our hemisphere."
The ultimatum did not move Congress, however, and the deal was not approved before Bush left office.
Democrats were, at the time, against the deal because of human rights concerns in the South American country, as well as general unease from union members about what free trade deals meant for U.S. workers and wages. On the 2008 campaign trail, both Obama and Clinton spoke out against the proposed agreement.
Obama told a union audience in Pennsylvania that he rejected the deal "because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements."
"As I have said for months, I oppose the deal,"
Clinton said at a meeting of the the Communications Workers of America in April 2008. "I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement."
But once Obama entered the White House in 2009, he worked with the office of the U.S. Trade Representative on the unaddressed agreement. As Obama's secretary of state, Clinton supported the deal, and her State Department worked to approve the agreement.
The Obama administration said in 2011 that the President's position changed because the agreement was renegotiated to increase labor rights commitments. Because of the deal, 80% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products to Colombia became duty-free, as will more than half of U.S. exports of agricultural commodities.
"Clinton Cash" alleges that
Clinton changed her positions on the free trade agreement because of the more than $100 million in donations and commitments Giustra made to the Clinton Foundation in 2007, the same year that Pacific Rubiales, a pipeline company that the mining magnate was involved with, signed a pipeline deal with a Colombian state-owned energy company."
I live in California. It won't make a damn bit of difference who I vote for, the decision has been made for me. For once in my adult life, I have something in common with Bernie.
Hey, I applaud principles and I gave Cruz a hat tip for standing by his at the RNC (although that was also a result of revenge). But how will those principles work for you when your rights continue to be eroded, the federal government becomes yuge, the debt grows bigger, and corruption/business as usual continues in Washington? We are seeing today what Robert Welch predicted back in 1958. It's almost scary.
Click to expand...
