Uranium One informant testifies that Russia sent millions of dollars to lobbying firm to influence Hillary Clinton.

An FBI informant who worked with Russian nuclear companies has testified that Russia sent millions of dollars to a lobbying firm with the understanding that it would be given to Bill and Hillary Clinton in exchange for favorable political actions. The Hill. Douglass Campbell testified that Russia sent money to a lobbying firm, APCO Worldwide, because they were in position to influence Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time. Four payments of $750,000 were sent to APCO to give to the Clinton Global Initiative (Clinton Foundation) as an effort to influence the Obama administration for the Uranium One deal and US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation deal.

Campbell further testified that Russia was trying to create a monopoly on nuclear production and that the Russians were laughing at us for how weak we were for giving away our nuclear companies. The Uranium One deal gave the Russian mining company, Rosatom, 20% of US Uranium mining capabilities.

Hillary Clinton

My Comment:
Fairly devastating reporting from The Hill here, despite their odd obsession with giving the Democrats a chance to spin this. Of course they were going to accuse Campbell of lying and this all being some huge Russian conspiracy. Why even give them more than a paragraph? Their denials aren't important. If there was video of Hillary Clinton drowning a puppy, they would still deny it.

What is important is that this looks very obviously like play for pay. The Russians wanted control of the world Uranium supply. They couldn't do this on the up and up so they decided to fund millions of dollars to a lobbying firm. That firm gave that money to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation was being run at the time by Bill Clinton who was the husband of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Using her position as Secretary of State, which could have torpedoed the Uranium One Deal, she instead allowed it to happen. This deal gave Russia control of 20% of our production and forced us to import our own, giving Russia the monopoly they wanted.

This is a huge deal and is likely criminal if it can be proved that Hillary Clinton took money to do the deal. Right now it's quite probable that she did indeed pay for play. Doing so domestically is a very serious crime. Doing it for a foreign power looking to increase their strategic power at the expense of America looks like treason, full stop. Giving Russia more control over the worlds uranium supply is not something the US government should do. It's not in our interest and doing so anyways seems like giving aid and comfort to the enemy to me, if Russia is indeed our enemies. 

One man's testimony isn't enough to prove that. Indeed, treason constitutionally requires the testimony of two witnesses of the criminal act. What is needed is more investigation. The FBI, who paid Campbell $50,000 for his efforts as an informant, need to continue their investigation into the Clinton's. Those investigations are going on but are in the background right now, overshadowed by the controversy at the top with the FISA mess and other major investigations.

I also have to say that there is some supreme irony here. For years now we have heard the Democrats complaining that the Russians were interfering with the election. Trump got eviscerated for having Michael Flynn talk to the Russian ambassador after the election, even though that is his job, because ANY links to Russia are seen as treason to them.

If that is the standard we are going with, than isn't this treason too? If only meeting with Russians is an impeachable offense, what is getting bribed to give them 20% of our Uranium production? Super treason?

As for me, I never bought the Russia collusion scandal. But this case sure looks like one of the 2016 candidates was, at the very least, in bed with the Russians.If true, this means that Hillary Clinton was compromised. For all her tough talk on Russia, it is very clear that all Russian had to do to control here would have been to release this information to the press. This is way more scandalous than the Steele Dossier accusations, even if they were true.

I also don't really expect Bill and Hillary Clinton to go down for this. Even though it clearly looks like they committed some serious crimes, I don't have faith in the justice system anymore. If the Clinton's have taught us anything it is there is one set of rules for the elite and another for everyone else. As much as I want to see justice served here I just don't see it happening...

Jeff Sessions may form a 2nd special counsel to investigate the Clintons.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Hill/Getty. 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering forming a 2nd special counsel to investigate several Clinton family issues. The Hill. The probe could cover several different issues, including the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One scandal, the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server and the Obama unmasking scandal. The Justice Department is already looking into these issues and more and may set up prosecution. The 2nd special council will have a different mandate from Robert Mueller's special counsel which has focused on supposed election interference. 

My Comment:

Very big news if true. And news that is likely to boost the opinions of both Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump. One of Trump supporters biggest complaints was that nothing was being done about these obvious stories of corruption and graft. Sessions went from being one of the most beloved of Trump's supporters to being one of the most disliked. Finally doing something will silence Session's biggest critics. And it will of course help Trump as well. One of his campaign promises was to "Lock Her Up". 

Why is a 2nd special counsel necessary? Well, Muller's only covers election interference. Though a special counsel can go outside of their mandate, see Paul Manafort, the Clinton and Obama administration scandals are pretty far away from his mandate. Even though Muller's investigation trended towards Clinton lackeys like John and Tony Podesta it seems that the major players aren't going down from that investigation.

A 2nd special counsel would be able to investigate these scandals. And they are all huge scandals. The Clinton Foundation was basically a giant money laundering and corruption scheme and needs to be broken up. The Uranium One scandal is a huge deal and James Comey did some pretty shady stuff as well. Worst of all was the Obama unmasking scandal that violated Trump and his family's civil rights. 

Still, we should temper our hopes. I think that we can't assume that everyone is going to go down. Former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton will almost certainly be spared. It would be unprecedented to arrest a former president and I doubt that Trump would want to sully the name of the office of President by sending two of them to prison. Much like Ford pardoned Nixon, I think that Trump will give the former POTUS's a pass. 

Other people won't be so lucky. It would be very unlikely that Hillary Clinton doesn't at least get charged with something. It might be a slap on the wrist and she probably won't serve any time but I expect her to get charged and plead guilty to something. 

James Comey is likely going down as well. His handling of the Clinton e-mail scandal was, by all accounts, horrible. It might even have been criminal and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets charged too. I also expect quite a number of Obama administration and Democratic workers to go down as well. 

I am almost expecting a big announcement tomorrow when Trump returns from Asia. There have been rumors flying for awhile now that there would be an earth shaking announcement from Trump on criminal prosecution of high ranking Democrat officials. A lot has been made of the high number of sealed indictments in Federal Court and people are trying to connect the dots. This statement from Sessions isn't quite there but it does give credence to those rumors. Time will tell if those rumors are true or not. 

Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch meet, giving the appearance of corruption.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch. AP.

Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with each other aboard her plane in Phoenix. Washington Post/AP. The two claim that they only met to discuss their "grandchildren" and not the Justice Departments investigations into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. The meeting has created a firestorm of controversy for both Clinton and Lynch due to the obvious appearance of corruption. Lynch claims that she will still follow the FBI's recommendations when it comes to charging Hillary Clinton. 

My Comment:

Talk about stupid. Bill Clinton screwed up and screwed up bad. This is what we call and unforced error for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Obviously both Clinton and Lynch should have known what this would have looked like to the public. Why they chose to have this meeting is beyond me. 

This looks like a pretty clear case of corruption to me. There is no way that the leader of the investigation into Hillary Clinton should ever be meeting with her husband. We don't know what they actually talked about but I am sure it wasn't their grandchildren. 

My guess is that Bill Clinton wanted insider information about the investigation into Hillary Clinton. He wanted to know how likely she was to be charged and when it would be happening. He may have even tried to convince Lynch to not file charges entirely. Either way, it's information that Bill Clinton should not have.

So what does Loretta Lynch get from this? Well she's out of a job come November, especially if she ends up charging Clinton for her e-mail debacle. If Trump is elected she's out of a job for sure as there is no chance he would keep her on as Attorney General. With her in charge of the e-mail investigation, there is little chance that Hillary Clinton would keep her as well. 

Since Lynch is most likely going to be kicked out of office by the end of the year she may have thought that she could stay on due to this meeting with Bill Clinton. Though I can't prove a quid pro quo, my guess is that she was promised to keep her job if she keeps Hillary Clinton out of trouble. If that's true it's obvious corruption. 

Of course, I can't prove any of this and the only people that know what happened between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are Clinton and Lynch. I guess it is possible that it was an innocent conversation but at this point nobody is going to believe it. Even if it was an innocent conversation both Lynch and Clinton are experienced politicians and should have been aware of the optics of the situation. 

And I think that is more circumstantial evidence that something unseemly has happened. Hillary Clinton's campaign is in desperate straights due to the popular perception that she is corrupt. This event adds to that perception so Bill Clinton would not have done this if it he didn't think that he would get something out of it. This meeting probably hurts the Hillary Clinton Campaign but not as much as an indictment would, at least in the Clinton's eyes. 

I'm not sure if that logic holds though. This plays right into the perception that the Clinton's are corrupt. And the story has gone viral, so millions of people have one more mark in the favor of the Clinton's being corrupt. I mean the attack adds write themselves.

I think this does hurt the Clinton's pretty badly. People already think that they are corrupt and in a lot of people's eyes this will confirm that. Trump will hit Clinton hard on this issue and I expect a lot of anti-Hillary super-PAC's will as well. Trump has never shied away from hitting Hillary Clinton and I expect him to bash her, Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch for the rest of the campaign. Indeed, Trump has already started to do so.

As for the e-mail scandal itself, I do think that there is enough evidence to charge Hillary Clinton. There is no reason whatsoever to have a public server when you are Secretary of State. The FBI has crucified people for less then what Hillary Clinton has done. She should be charged and it should have happened a long time ago.

I really do think that the Obama administration is protecting Hillary Clinton. Though Obama and Clinton do not like each other all that much, they both need each other to protect their legacy. A corruption scandal like this would greatly damage their images and could hurt their future earnings on the speech giving circuit. As long as Obama is in the White House, I don't expect Hillary Clinton to be brought to justice.. 

My thoughts on Bill Clinton arguing with Black Lives Matter protesters.

Bill Clinton stands behind his wife at a benefit concert. Reuters. 

Clinton's remarks at a Philadelphia rally. 

Bill Clinton loudly criticized Black Lives Matter protesters at a Philadelphia rally. Reuters. For more then 10 minutes, Bill Clinton went on a rant as BLM hecklers bashed his wife over a 1994 crime bill. The protesters are mad about remarks that Hillary Clinton made in 1994 where she called black criminals "super-predators" that needed to be "brought to heel". Bill Clinton responded to the hecklers by saying "I don't know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped on crack and sent them out on the street to murder other African-American children,". He also said that "You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter". Bill Clinton also claimed that the protesters were lying about Hillary Clinton's record. Criminal justice reform has been a major issue this campaign season. Black Americans make up a disproportionate number of incarcerated prisoners in America. Both Clinton's have said that they regret the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act's impact on the incarceration rate. 

My Comment:

Before I say anything else, if you watched any of Bill Clinton's speech, you will be shocked at how unhealthy he looks and sounds. The man is 69 yeas old but he looks and sounds even older. His voice has also really changed from what I remember. He sounded horse and a couple of times his voice started to give out. In fact, I would say that Bill Clinton looks even worse then his wife, Hillary, who has also gained quite a bit of attention for her perceived ill health. I think having to go through their 4th presidential campaign, two successful, one failure and one undecided, is really taking a toll on both Clinton's health. I would not be terrible surprised if one or both of them didn't make it to November just based on how they sound alone. 

On to the actual article. This is another example of the left eating each other and, of course, I am all for it. In the past Black Lives Matter has largely left Hillary Clinton alone, but it appears that those days are over. Now BLM seems to be willing to attack anyone and everyone for the most trivial things. In a primary season where the GOP is ripping itself apart over stupid reasons, it is nice to see the Democrats getting into the action.

I hate to say it, but I think Bill Clinton is probably the one who is in the right here. He may be a woman abusing jerk who never should have been president, but the protesters were out of line. Disrupting a speech, no matter who the candidate is, is a stupid thing to do. I gotta give Bill Clinton a lot of credit for not just ignoring them but actually countering the protesters points. I don't know if I agree with what he said in rebuttal, but I do admire him for actually having the courage to stand up to these idiots. That kind of, courage is rare to see in the Democratic party these days, and even though I dislike Bill Clinton, I think he was correct to stand up for his wife. Indeed, candidates like Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders immediately backed down when confronted by Black Lives Matters protesters. Only Bill Clinton and Jim Webb disagreed with them publicly. 

Does this hurt or help Hillary Clinton though? I think it might do a little of both. Hillary Clinton already polls very well among the black community and her opponent, Bernie Sanders, is largely despised by them, even though Sanders tries to pander to them extensively. Having her husband come down hard on BLM could hurt her. BLM seems to have a lot of influence and they could shift black voters into voting for Sanders or staying home on election day. 

It really depends on how popular BLM is among black people. I have no idea how to answer that question. As far as I know there hasn't been any polling to find out one way or the other. Certainly on social media BLM is popular with black users, but that's hardly an accurate sample size. Even if it is though, I don't think Blacks are going to suddenly abandon Hillary Clinton for Bernie Sanders, especially when BLM doesn't get alone with him either. And I bet there is a large but silent group of black people that dislike BLM for their actions, even if they agree on their policy recommendations.

I do think that there are going to be a lot of White, Asian and Hispanic Democrats that are going to like Bill Clinton standing up against BLM. There is no doubt that the Democratic party focuses on the African American community at the expense of other minority and majority groups. These are the key voters that Hillary Clinton has been hemorrhaging to Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent, Donald Trump. I am guessing at least some of them will appreciate Bill Clinton finally standing up to BLM. 

As for the protesters specific claim, was the 1994 bill a good one or a bad one? I don't think anyone really knows for sure. There was a major drop off on crime in the mid 1990's that continues to this day, but it is all but impossible to determine if the bill is what caused it. Indeed, I have heard dozens of theories as to why the crime rate is dropping off and the crack down on crime in the 1990's is just one factor. Other possible factors include the lower levels of lead in the atmosphere, demographic changes, the loosening of gun control laws and even the rise of video games and pornography (yes really!) It's very hard to tell if one or all of these factors played a role. And even if the bill did work, it's hard to determine it if outweighed the damage it is accused of doing. In short, I don't know, the experts don't know and there is no way that BLM knows! 

I do think that there were some very bad parts to the bill. Obviously I am totally opposed to the assault weapons ban. The fact that gun crime has dropped dramatically even after the ban was lifted shows that gun control has little to do with gun crime. I also think the three strike law was pretty stupid. Sure, it put some very bad people away, but it also hit a lot of people that should not have been put away for life. 

I would generally agree that criminal justice reform is needed. Ironically enough, the cause Black Lives Matter cares about the most is the one they ensured would not happen. I have said before that the mood for conservative Americans was optimal for reform a few years ago. When the Bundy Ranch standoff and IRS targeting scandal happened, everyone on the right was saying that the federal government was out of control and that we desperately needed reform. There was starting to look like real momentum for changing the police state from both parties. 

And then Ferguson happened. And Baltimore. And the riots in Chicago. And the cause of police reform when right out of the window. BLM pissed away any appetite the American people had for reform. The police state looks a lot more attractive when people are rioting for reasons that make no sense. Right now, where there was once great bipartisan support for reform, there is only fear. Indeed, compare the reaction to the Bundy Ranch standoff and the shooting during the Oregon standoff. In the first Bundy and his followers were treated as heroes and in the second, nobody cared that the FBI shot a guy under suspicious circumstances. The only difference between those events is every thing that BLM has done in the past couple of years. 

Finally, I think that if we really are going to fix the complaints of both BLM and everyone else, the Black community is going to have to ask some hard questions about themselves. Yes, young black men are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate, but they also commit crime at a disproportionate rate. Even after you control for things like poverty and education. BLM would have you believe that the only reason that is true is because of racism. As long as that is the only politically acceptable answer to the question, nothing will ever change. 

Donald Trump is starting to attack both Hillary and Bill Clinton. AFP.

Donald Trump speaking on the USS Iowa last September. AFP.

Donald Trump is starting to attack both Hillary Clinton and her ex-president husband, Bill Clinton. AFP. Trump has been bashing the couple for Bill Clinton's long record of infidelity and perceived sexism. Trump has been labeled by the Clinton campaign as a sexist after many of his remarks, including one where he said that Hillary Clinton had been "schlonged" by Barack Obama during their presidential primary race. But Trump has warned the Clinton campaign that trying to pull the sexism card against him would be a bad idea due to Bill Clinton's behavior in the past. Trump also demanded an apology after Hillary Clinton claimed that ISIS was using his remarks on restricting Muslim immigration to recruit people during the last Democratic debate. Clinton claimed that ISIS had put his statements into propaganda videos, but to date no such videos have been found. 

My Comment:

I'll talk about the ISIS claim first. Hillary Clinton was completely lying about the video. As of this writing there have been no ISIS propaganda videos staring Donald Trump. And I doubt ISIS thinks about Trump at all. Most of their propaganda, when it mentions American politics at all, talks about Barack Obama. Sometimes other politicians are mentioned. Indeed, in one video, posted below, ISIS called out Bill Clinton himself calling him a "fornicator" (at about 45 seconds into the video). He wasn't the only president called out, as Barack Obama and George Bush were made fun of as well. But Donald Trump wasn't mentioned at all. 

If the video is removed, the video is "No Respite".

ISIS is certainly politically savvy and may eventually exploit Donald Trump's campaign statements in their propaganda videos. But that hasn't happened yet and for Hillary Clinton to claim that Trump is a recruiter for ISIS when her own husband has been filling the same role is hugely hypocritical. Either way though, the argument that we shouldn't say some things just because ISIS may use the soundbite as a recruitment tool is stupid. ISIS is going to do whatever they want and if it isn't Donald Trump's statements they use, it will be something else. They are disgusted by most of Western society, so there is plenty they could be offended by even if Trump had never said anything controversial at all. 

And the idea that we should never say anything bad about Islam and Muslims because if we do they will join terror groups seems rather offensive to me. After all, people are claiming anyone that wants to restrict immigration for Muslims are bigots, but those same people think that Muslims are so sensitive that even mentioning that some Muslims could be a threat will cause all Muslims to freak out and join terror groups? My question is who is the real bigot here? I'd like to think that even the most anti-Muslim bigot would understand that there are millions of Muslims that would either ignore Donald Trump's criticism or at the very least, wouldn't immediately join ISIS and kill people. 

As for Donald Trump being a sexist, I really think he is the opposite. He treats women exactly the same as he treats men, at least when it comes to politics. Trump is a blowhard and speaks his mind. He insults people. And he does it regardless of his opponents sex, race or age. He does the exact opposite of discriminating against women, he treats them the same as he would treat a man. I will say that it seems like he treats women he respects, like his daughters, wife, and the women in his company, well. Though Trump is crude and says some crazy things once in awhile, I don't think he hates women just for being women. But if the bar for sexism is that you can never be critical or any woman ever, under any circumstances, then all of us are sexist and sexism has lost all meaning. 

There is this insane idea out there that being critical of any particular woman means you hate all women. Which is incredibly stupid. Just because you disagree with Hillary Clinton, and I certainly do, does not mean that you hate all women. Even if you call her mean names, that does not translate to hating all women. Being a woman does not absolve you of any and all criticism. But many women see all women as their tribe. An attack on one feels like an attack on all. That's an almost universal problem with any group mind you, so the problem isn't unique. I could give you dozens of examples of people perceiving a criticism against an individual as a criticism of a group, including times where I fell into the trap myself. It's not a smart way to think about things, that is for sure. But it does explain why claiming Trump is sexist because he criticizes, harshly, people like Hillary Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell works. 

 And almost all of the time, when a female politician uses the gender card she is using it to distract against criticism. There is plenty of criticism that Hilary Clinton needs to distract against. She's done a lot of bad things as a First Lady, as a Senator, and especially as a Secretary of State. Those scandals won't go away just because she is a woman. She needs to answer for them and pointing those scandals out does not mean someone is sexist. 

As for Bill Clinton, I think Trump is right. His treatment of women has never been exemplary, to the point that Wikipedia has a whole page on his sexual misconduct. He cheated on his wife more then once with many different women. His relationship with Monica Lewinsky was inappropriate, even if he was single, and he has been accused of far worse. And Hillary Clinton has also been accused of covering up his infidelities and perhaps even crimes. After all, Juanita Broaddrick claimed that Bill went as far to rape her and she claimed that Hillary intimidated her. 

Though I have no idea if all or even most of the allegations against Bill Clinton are true, the fact of the matter is that most politicians don't have that long of a rap sheet when it comes to these kinds of sex scandals and still have a successful career. I would argue that even being sleazy like Bill Clinton is doesn't make him sexist, but by almost any standard he has treated women worse then Donald Trump has. I don't think either of them are really sexist, but I do think that Bill Clinton gets a pass for behavior that would get a Republican candidate crucified. 

I am not sure that these attacks will hurt Hillary Clinton or help Donald Trump all that much. The people that support her have supported her through worse and the people that hate her can't hate her much more then they do already. There may be a few people out there may switch their allegiance one way or the other because of this issue, but they will be few and far between. The only exception I can see is for young people that were too small to remember all the scandals of the Clinton Presidency when they happened. Since those people tend to lean liberal anyways Trumps attacks on Clinton, if they help anyone, they probably help Bernie Sanders more then they help him. 

I don't think Trump has anything to lose by bashing the Clinton's this way though.The people that hate him will think he is a bigot no matter what he does, so attacking has no cost. But it does have one benefit. It's like throwing a huge juicy red meat steak to the Republican party. Almost everyone in the Republican party hates Hillary Clinton and there aren't that many fans of Bill Clinton in the party either. Bashing the Clinton's for Bill's treatment of women is the kind of thing that could gain Trump's fans from people that would otherwise hate him. I also think that some people are absolutely sick of people using the "sexism" card to get out of actual criticism. If 2015 taught us anything it's that people are sick and tired of identity politics. Trump understands this and he is helping to fuel the backlash.

Finally, I think that most of this is irrelevant to whether or not you should vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. You should vote on policy and not whether or not someone said something mean about somebody. Just because Hillary Clinton got made fun off does not mean she should be president. And Donald Trump shouldn't be president just because he managed to tangle with the Clinton's. You should vote for what the candidates want to do and what their politics are, not over stupid scandals or fights. If you hate Hillary Clinton's personality or husband but you like her policies you should vote for her. Same goes for Donald Trump or whoever you want to vote for. Vote on the issues, not fights. 

Bill Clinton on 9/10/01 "I could have killed Bin Laden". -Washington Post

On 9/10/01, one day before the 9/11 terror attacks, Bill Clinton gave a speech where he said that he could have killed Osama Bin Laden. -Washington Post. The speech, given to Australian businessmen, was recently discovered. He claimed that in order to do so he would have had to destroy Kandahar and kill woman and children. He did not think that would have been morally justified. 

My Comment:

Odd timing on this recording coming out. Could it have something to do with his wife running for president? Maybe. I'm willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt here. At the time killing 300 people to get one (I wonder how he got those numbers?) was a bad deal. But if he had known that Bin Laden would be directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and indirectly responsible for the complete disintegration of the Middle East, he might have changed his mind. Knowing what we know now, had I been the one to make the call, Bin Laden would be dead. Oh well, hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.