BloggeRhythms

As has been the case for the past couple of weeks, since Bill Clinton’s wife announced her candidacy for the presidency, much of the news in the media refers to her specifically.

 

In that regard, two major theories seemed to have evolved as to why considerable major main-stream media attention is being paid to several very damaging disclosures that segment would generally ignore.

 

One idea projects that with the election a year and a half away, the media wants to get the negativity out of the way now, leaving clear sailing for the rest of the campaign. On the other hand, many believe that there may be more to the damaging stories, thus they don’t want to be surprised by backing a candidate who’ll embarrass them further down the road when it will be too late for them to recover from their mistakes.

 

There’s also another faction believing Bill’s wife isn’t far left enough, preferring Elizabeth Warren who still insists she has no interest in running, Which leaves Martin O’Malley as a very viable alternative.

 

As far as potential problems for Bill’ wife are concerned, the usually supportive Jonathan Chait in nymag.com recapped them as follows:

 

“The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

 

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

 

The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.

 

The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”

 

And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

 

Mr. Chait then opines that, “The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.”

 

On a similar subject, improprieties, Rush spoke yesterday about a release saying “the government is concerned about Bill Clinton’s activities with Saudi entities.  Now, we already had the New York Times story where they detail Hillary Clinton facilitating Russia gaining control over the uranium market in exchange for at least $3 million of donations.  Remember, there are others.  The $2.3 million donation came just from the chairman of the Canadian uranium company, but there are others again. 

 

“Among the donors to the Clinton Foundation that had a role in the uranium deal in Canada: "Frank Giustra -- $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more. He built a company that later merged with Uranium One. Ian Telfer -- $2.35 million -- Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it. Paul Reynolds -- $1 million to $5 million -- Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger." 

 

“He "[l]ater helped raise $260 million for the company." All of these people gave money to the Clintons while she's secretary of state.  So she looked the other way while all this was happening! She was paid off to look throw away (she was personally enriched, as was her husband) while Russia cornered the market, or tried to, on uranium.  Frank Holmes -- $250,000 to $500,000 -- Chief Executive of US Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011..." 

 

Rush concludes the issue by stating, “That's the New York Times. That is throat slitting.”

 

The, Rush went on to another subject, quoting a headline from the Washington Post:  "For Clintons, Speech Income Shows How Their Wealth Is Intertwined with Charity. " 

 

In this case, Rush’s point related to how cash flows through the Clinton Foundation, saying, “Stop and think of that for a second.  Folks, just two examples.  Kathryn and I are deeply involved with the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.  I have been since its founding in the mid-nineties.  We are one of their sponsors, the Rush Revere Book Series, children's books, time-travel adventures with exceptional Americans.  The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.  We have been involved in donating and or raising tens of millions of dollars for both these charities. 

 

“The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation has a pass-through of 99%.  You give a $1, and 99¢ goes to kids of Marines killed in action.  Leukemia & Lymphoma is pretty close to that.  There aren't people that went from nothing to a net worth of between $250 million to $300 million simply by having a foundation.  The Clintons don't even have a charity; it's just a foundation.”

 

Then Rush concluded by adding, “Bill Clinton, we're told that he's a funny, lovable guy, has great charisma. He's one of these guys that makes you think, when he's talking to you, that you are the only one in the room.  How many women have we heard say that? 

 

“I don't care how popular he is, Anastas Mikoyan from Kazakhstan is not giving Bill Clinton 500 grand 'cause he's a good guy.  Anastas Mikoyan or whoever is giving Clinton 500 grand because he expects somehow that Clinton is gonna be in a position someday to pay that back that's gonna be in some way favorable to Mr. Mikoyan, and largely that's the assumption Mrs. Clinton is gonna be in the White House someday.”

 

And that pretty much sums it all up precisely.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios