Lion of the Blogosphere

The Clintons are the real croocks

fortaleza84 writes in a comment:

For me, it would be interesting if there was evidence of a deal, explicit or implicit, whereby the Russians agreed to influence the election in favor of Trump and in return Trump agreed to push for policies which the Russians would deem favorable. In other words, evidence that Trump sold or attempted to sell political influence to foreigners.

So far, I have not seen even a shred of evidence of such an arrangement.

At the same time, there is lots of evidence that Hillary Clinton sold influence to foreigners.

So yeah, it seems that this is just another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

That’s right, the Clintons received $153 million from giving speeches (and that info comes from CNN, not from some dubious right-wing site). There’s no way they got paid that much because their speeches are so amazing. The people who paid them thought they were buying influence. A lot of that money came from foreigners. Even Russians.

Plus, $2 billion raised for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-related charities. Even the left-leaning Washington Post stated “the foundation elevates the wealthy by giving them entree to one of the nation’s most prominent political families.” That sounds like influence-buying to me. And we don’t entirely know where that money came from, because charities have very light reporting requirements.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 16, 2017 at 8:42 am

Posted in Politics

32 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. They’re “croocks”? Really, Lion?

    Mrs Stitch

    July 16, 2017 at 10:36 am

    • Fascinating neologism, one peculiarly appropriate to politicians. Most politicians are corrupt by nature, giving us the cognate “crook”. Most of them are full of B.S., too – giving us “crock” as in “crock of sh**”. Combine the two, and voila – you have “croock”!

      Jimmy Kangaroo

      July 18, 2017 at 11:21 am

  2. It’s disappointing that Trump is defending himself instead of attacking Clinton. He should be harassing her 24/7 with congressional hearings and a special prosecutor.

    Speaking of Clinton Foundation, it was receiving money through another Clinton-owned Canadian foundation. Apparently, reporting names of donors is not required in Canada (Canada being Switzerland, sort of.) Why would she set it up in this manner, unless she was taking money from shady individuals?


    July 16, 2017 at 11:00 am

    • It is interesting that Trump hasn’t taken a single step towards “locking her up”. Probably because he knows he would get no support from Congress. Everyone from Pelosi to Ryan to McConnell are guilty of taking money from lobbyists, I don’t think either side of the aisle has much interest in pursuing this.

      Peter Akuleyev

      July 17, 2017 at 5:26 am

    • Frankly, the Trump administration probably should be harassing her, through the rubric of matching investigations for investigation. The Justice Department should open investigations on the Ukrainian connection and match a Justice investigation for every outrage the media has. There is no end to Clinton wrongdoing to investigate, and I think eventually the media will get the message.

      Mike Street Station

      July 17, 2017 at 7:29 am

  3. NY Times, Apr. 23, 2015:

    “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”

    “[S]hortly 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.”

    “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One, […] Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million [to the Clinton Foundation]”.

    “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.”

    Mark Caplan

    July 16, 2017 at 11:12 am

  4. Clintons and the gang of DC Lobbyists who influence are the worse type of VT parasites of the bunch. They make Wall St financiers and Manhattan landlords look like normal, hardworking, chaps. Just look at all the corporate wealth that has been sucked out of the nation to erect multi-million dollar homes within the DC vicinity of de-civilization, all because of lobbyists getting paid to “sell” influence.


    July 16, 2017 at 12:24 pm

  5. Actually, charities have extremely rigorous requirements they must follow with their financial reporting. The Clinton Foundation doesn’t have a single filing that meets those requirements going back to the inception in 1997. Google Charles Ortel. See his 3 interviews with Stefan Molyneux beginning August 2016. You don’t have to prove intent with charity fraud. You just have to show that the filings are materially incomplete/inaccurate. The Clintons are going down.

    Andrew E.

    July 16, 2017 at 12:26 pm

  6. I’ve always thought it strange that Hillary Clinton, whose personality ranges from dull to off-putting, could command $250K or more for standing in front of a roomful of people reciting words that someone else had written for her.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    July 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm

  7. Hermitage Capital Management’s Russian office raided by Russian law enforcement, They take the incorporating documents for the Russian subsidiary.

    Russian organized crime figures use the documents to take control of the subsidiary in Russian courts.

    Other Russian organized crime figures and government official sue the company in Russian courts resulting in a $230 million tax rebate.

    The $230 million disappears into a labyrinth of shell companies.

    Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer and auditor for Hermitage Capital Management, discovers this and reports the missing $230 million to the Russian government.

    The Russian government accuses Sergei Magnitsky of tax fraud, arrests him and put him in jail where he dies after being beaten.

    US Congress passes the Magnitsky Act placing sanctions on individuals responsibility for the tax fraud or Magnitsky’s death.

    Putin seems unconcerned by the loss of $230 million through the tax fraud, but is enraged by the Magnitsky Act and bans adoptions of Russian orphans by American citizens.

    Putin sets up a US lobbying operation to get Magnitsky Act repealed so that adoptions can resume. One of the lobbyist is Rinat Akhmetshin.

    Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, brings civil case against a company headed by Denis Katsyv that used some of the $230 million to purchase New York real estate.

    The Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is in the US in June 20116 to help defend Denis Katsyv in the civil case.

    Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin arrange a meeting with Trump Jr to offer him information about Hillary Clinton represented as coming from the Russian government to help his father’s campaign and to talk about the Magnitsky Act.

    After Trump is elected, Preet Bharara is fired as US Attorney.

    In May of 2017 Department of Justice lawyers settle the civil case against Denis Katsyv out of court for $6 million. Denis Katsyv and his company are not required to admit guilt.


    July 16, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    • Is this a summary of the best evidence of influence-selling on the part of Trump to the Russians?


      July 16, 2017 at 7:51 pm

      • The best summary is probably this.

        But it is nothing that we didn’t already know. Nothing what Trump has done seems to rise to “treason” or even “collusion”, it is typical shady businessman activity. Was it stupid of the GOP to nominate a corrupt businessman who is in debt to organized crime bosses to run for President? Of course. It was obvious last year that Trump had feet of clay and would present a perfect target for obstructionist Democrats, that is why the Dems helped Trump get the nomination in the first place. And given what a disaster Hillary would have been as President, this may be working out better for the Dems than they want to admit.

        Peter Akuleyev

        July 17, 2017 at 5:33 am

    • Tell us the part about how DJT talked AG Lynch into allowing Natalia back in the country so she could meet with DJT Jr. and conspire with him to commit treason.


      July 16, 2017 at 11:54 pm

      • Trump said, “Somebody said that her visa or her passport to come into the country was approved by Attorney General Lynch. Now, maybe that’s wrong. I just heard that a little while ago…”

        It is wrong.

        Natalia Veselnitskaya is a citizen of Russia. Her passport was issued by the Russian government.

        US Visas are issued by the State Department, not by the Justice Department. The Attorney General cannot issue a visa. Entry into the country at airports is under the control of department of homeland security.

        This shows Trump’s ignorance of how the government works.


        July 17, 2017 at 10:17 am

      • Ignorance of how the government work shows the opposite of criminality, just ignorance.

  8. There is an error in this post. The spelling is “crooks” not “croocks.” Carry on.

    Panther of the Blogocube

    July 16, 2017 at 2:15 pm

  9. croocks?


    July 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

  10. With speeches and charitable donations, there’s plausible deniability and it’s more indirect and there usually aren’t direct exchanges and promises.


    July 16, 2017 at 3:21 pm

  11. i repeat myself. it’s not derangement on the part of the deranged. it just looks like it if one assumes these people are sincere. they aren’t. that is, these “deranged” people in elite media do not actually believe any of this russia stuff. they do not actually believe that hillary isn’t more corrupt than any candidate has ever been.

    what they do believe in is keeping their power. the US is proximally and for the most part run by evil people, high IQ psychopaths, but not that high.

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    • Strange thing is, many in the American elite don’t strike me as particularly intelligent. Even in a sinister, manipulative way.

      And as for Hillary, didn’t she fail her bar exam the first time she took it? That sets an upper limit on her intelligence of about 130 (I’m guessing).


      July 16, 2017 at 8:11 pm

      • It does appear to me that our “cognitive elite” seem more to have elite connections rather than elite minds.

        Mike Street Station

        July 17, 2017 at 7:11 am

    • You are deranged, or maybe just ignorant of American history. In no way are the Clintons more corrupt than the Kennedy clan, who had direct ties to organized crime. Nor can the Clintons rise to the level of most of the Gilded Age Presidents in terms of venality and influence peddling. Corruption in the White House is nothing particularly noteworthy, and not necessarily a bad thing. The least corrupt President of all time was Jimmy Carter, and look how that worked out.

      Peter Akuleyev

      July 17, 2017 at 5:37 am


    The Great Investigation into Nothing Continues

    It has been mentioned by other Trump friendly pundits that Don Jr.’s meeting with two Russians did not violate any laws.

    This pundit for his part adds that not only were no laws broken but, based on the released emails, Don Jr. didn’t come into the meeting knowing what kind of information about Hillary would be on offer.

    For all he knew their dirt could have been related to the old Whitewater investigation from the 1980s and 1990s, Hillary’s role in her husband’s intimidation of his former lovers, or any of the countless crimes and scandals Clinton Inc. has entangled itself with for decades.

    The hacked DNC emails, on the other hand, are not specifically identified in the emails as the “dirt”. It’s even debatable whether it would have been a crime if the hacked emails were handed out. When the meeting was held it turns out no useful information was offered.

    I also find it interesting that Trump campaign higher ups were willing to meet with these two Russians at all given how flimsy their basis for claiming deep connections to Putin’s government were.

    The fact they were willing to listen to these characters suggests that the Trump campaign was still not satisfied with what was in their opposition research files. If they were looking to bulk up their oppo research they probably did not have access to whatever emails Russian intelligence gathered; otherwise they would have brushed off the meeting invite.

    McConnell Will Probably Get Health Care Over the Finish Line

    After a modified version of the Conservative amendment proposed by Senators Lee and Cruz was added to the health care bill by McConnell, the task for the Majority Leader is now primarily about winning over moderate Senators such as Portman and Heller.

    The idiots who make up Capitol Hill’s press pool have wrongly interpreted the moderate Senator’s hesitancy to endorse the bill as “no votes” which doom the bill.

    To be sure, McConnell has no room for error given that Paul and Collins are almost certain to vote no.

    But the actions of the remaining moderate holdouts are consistent with maximizing their bargaining power, not sinking the bill.

    Should the bill fail, the Senate will have to revisit Obamacare anyway to correct the federal subsidies for the exchanges, subsidies which are being challenged in court and could be cancelled by the Trump administration at any time.

    The Senate would then need 60 votes with the help of Democrats to get some sort of fix passed. If Democrat votes become needed, the moderate Republicans would see their bargaining power diluted.

    Promising ‘yes’ too early means wasting the considerable leverage they have over McConnell, who cannot afford to lose a single vote but who has about $100 billion to play with. But ultimately voting ‘no’ means their states lose pork, special carve outs, and other perks.

    By holding out until the end is within sight the moderates are extracting as much out of McConnell’s $100 billion goodie bag as they can. Expect more posturing up to the vote in addition to wheeling and dealing by McConnell.

    But when the vote is held don’t bet the moderates will kill concessions they’ve negotiated so hard to capture.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    July 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm

  13. For me, it would be interesting if there was evidence of a deal, explicit or implicit, whereby the Russians agreed to influence the election in favor of Trump and in return Trump agreed to push for policies which the Russians would deem favorable. In other words, evidence that Trump sold or attempted to sell political influence to foreigners.

    The Russians had little incentive to make any deal with Trump implicit or explicit because Trump had always been favorable to them while Clinton was implacable as far as the Russians were concerned.

    The Russians would have had more of an incentive to make a deal with a different Republican nominee who had negative attitudes towards Russia but may have seen “buyable” compared to Clinton.

    Trump was already “bought” and so they had no need to let him directly in on whatever cyberespionage they engaged in.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    July 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm

  14. or rather, if there are any who believe it they are like the HR departments at big company X.

    the executives of X claim “affirmative action equal opportunity” in order to avoid lawsuits.

    their underlings in HR really believe it.

    the purpose of black people in american politics is to make poor whites vote against their own economic interests. they’re convenient.

    Beverly Hills Ninja

    July 16, 2017 at 4:04 pm

  15. I think the worm has turned and the Trump/Russia story is becoming the new Benghazi. Anti-Trump zealots are following the story closely and getting excited about every new crumb of information, but partisans on the other side have concluded there’s nothing there, and mushhead independents have decided it’s all too complicated to understand and they’d rather not think about it. The tell for me was when the Don Trump Jr. story got very little activity on Twitter, even though on evidentiary grounds it’s by far the strongest case yet for the Russia conspiracy. People have stopped caring.

    The MSM is realizing this too. Outlets like the New York Times are starting to run “Where’s the Outrage?” stories, always the first dying moan of a controversy slipping out of public consciousness:

    Even though the targets for now are conservative ne’er-do-wells like Breitbart and Fox, that’s just a temporary cover. If ghetto media was where the problem really lay the MSM wouldn’t care. It’s the lack of interest by political independents that’s killing them, that’s causing the story to run its wheels in the mud.

    Past a certain point, liberals could laugh off any Benghazi story by just typing “Benghazi!” in the comments section and watch the sputtering. I think “Russia!” is heading towards the same fate.


    July 16, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    • But in Benghazi’s case the President did commit an impeachable offense: Deliberately allowing our embassy staff to be killed by Islamic terrorists.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 16, 2017 at 7:49 pm

      • Liberals are convinced Trump committed an impeachable offense.


        July 16, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    • False equivalence. Something bad and wrong actually did happen with Benghazi. Not so here.

      Andrew E.

      July 16, 2017 at 7:51 pm

      • The equivalence is with the public reaction. It’s acknowledged partisans opposed to the party in office strongly cared in both instances. The public at large couldn’t get outraged.


        July 16, 2017 at 9:26 pm

      • Something bad and wrong happened with the 2016 election as well, the American people failed to vote in Hillary. Even with all the cheating involved. How else can you explain what happened except that foul play was involved?

        Panther of the Blogocube

        July 16, 2017 at 10:50 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: