The Clinton Cash: The Russian Uranium Indictment And The Lingering Questions Over Influence Peddling [UPDATED]

Enter a caption

Clinton_Foundation_logoBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the recent major indictment handed down in the Uranium One scandal.  As I have stated in the media, the indictment does not alter my skepticism over the likelihood of any criminal charges against Clinton. However, it does reaffirm lingering questions over the many millions of dollars pocketed by the Clintons personally or given to their Foundation  I think that there is little question about this money being given with the hopes of influencing the Clintons, and particularly Hillary Clinton.  The only question is whether it succeeded. For that, we would need an independent and full investigation.

UPDATED: This column was updated to more clearly distinguish the two contracts involved in the Russian transport of uranium (in the Lambert indictment) and the purchase of U.S. uranium holdings (in the Uranium One purchase). The indictment concerns a contract to transport uranium with a subsidiary of Rosatom.  This is the same agency at the heart of the Rosatom/Uranium One scandal but the contract occurred years before the purchase of Uranium One. 

When the indictments came down against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his aide, Rick Gates, the headline of a Washington Post article declared, “With money laundering charges against Paul Manafort, Trump’s ‘fake news’ charge is harder to defend.”

It did not matter that Manafort’s indictment was entirely removed from any campaign connection and involved financial dealings well before his association with Trump. The desire for an independent and full investigation of Donald Trump is understandable, given the serious allegations of Russian influence.

Yet, the same logic does not appear to apply outside of Trump World. The same politicians and experts have dismissed efforts to investigate allegations of influence peddling, Russian conspiracies and special deals involving Hillary or Bill Clinton.

One such controversy involves the sale of a company, Uranium One, that holds 20 percent of our uranium resources. Last week, the Justice Department secured an 11-count indictment in a controversy linked to the Russian nuclear agency at the heart of the Uranium One controversy.  The indictment was brought against Mark Lambert, former head of a Maryland-based transportation company.

Uranium One was a Canadian uranium mining company with operations in the United States and other countries. In January 2013 Rosatom, the Russian state-owned uranium monopoly, bought the company at a value of $1.3 billion. The sale required the approval of a federal board that included then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, because these uranium reserves involve serious national security implications.

The Lambert indictment describes both a cover-up and a bribery scheme tied directly to activities of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency at center of the Uranium One scandal. While the specific contract involving these bribes dealt with a contract made years earlier for transportation of uranium, it revealed the depth of corrupt practices used by this subsidiary of Rosatom. Moreover, this is the third such indictment of officials associated with Rosatom contracts.

Lambert is accused of bribing a Russian official with Rosatom and hiding the payments with code words like “lucky figures,” “lucky numbers” and “cake.” Ultimately, Vadim Mikerin, the head of U.S. operations of a subsidiary of Rosatom, was sentenced to four years in prison for money laundering and other crimes. The indictment sheds more light on the corrupt practices associated with Rosatom.

I have previously stated that, while I believe this is an allegation worth investigating, I fail to see a strong case for a criminal charge against Hillary Clinton based on what we know of the deal. She was just one member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Nine government agencies participated on that board, and there does not appear to have been any dissenting votes. Ultimately, President Obama, not the board, approved the sale.

The sale, however, raises continuing concerns over the massive amounts of money given to the Clintons or their foundation. The payments peaked during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State and the period leading up to her widely anticipated announcement as a presidential candidate. (They dropped sharply after she was defeated in November 2016.) Even State Department employees raised concerns over the Clintons receiving hundreds of millions for speeches or foundation contributions. At the same time, Bill Clinton was raking in millions from foreign sources with dealings with the State Department, including some of the world’s most shady figures.

While the Russian deal was pending, he received $500,000 for a speech to a Kremlin-tied bank supporting the sale. During this period, nine Uranium One investors gave the Clinton Foundation some $145 million. The company’s chairman alone donated $2.35 million to the foundation during the pendency of the Uranium One deal. The Clinton Foundation failed to report some foreign contributions, despite an agreement to do so, as well as a pledge by Hillary Clinton in prior congressional testimony. The omitted payments reportedly included some money linked to Uranium One.

Few people think all of these government and foreign sources poured money into the coffers of the Clintons or their foundation out of the goodness of their hearts. As the Washington Post has acknowledged, “There can be little doubt that Russians who donated to the Clinton Foundation were trying to curry favor with the secretary of State.” If so, why are such efforts by the Russians and other countries not worthy of a full investigation?

Notably, the Clinton controversy not only has allegations of Russian influence but efforts to collude. Unlike claims of the Russians trying to influence the election by revealing Clinton emails, these allegations involve concrete economic benefits and contracts being sought by corrupt means. It has been reported that the Russians pursued every possible avenue to influence Hillary Clinton, much as they did during the Trump campaign with figures such as George Papadopoulos.

An attorney for a former FBI informant in the Tenam case was quoted in The Hill as saying her client “witnessed numerous, detailed conversations in which Russian actors described their efforts to lobby, influence or ingratiate themselves with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”

As I have previously stated, none of this establishes a case for a pay-to-play scheme or some quid pro quo. However, it is curious how so many commentators and politicians cannot countenance even the investigation into such allegations, even after this major indictment. Like the Washington Post, most of us agree that millions were given to the Clintons, either personally or to their foundation, with a desire to influence them. The question is simply whether any of this money led to concrete benefits — or whether some of the world’s sleaziest figures were just hopeful chumps.

While it is certainly a challenge to prove a quid pro quo criminal case, it is equally difficult to prove some crime associated with collusion. Yet, that has not diminished the call to find if Russian information was used to secure access or action from Trump officials. Here, hundreds of millions of dollars were passed to the Clintons or their foundation, but critics insist there is “nothing to see here.”

Despite objections over their accepting this money, the Clinton recklessly accepted millions from every conceivable source. After being “dead broke” (according to Hillary Clinton) at the end of the Clinton administration, the couple soon amassed a reported fortune worth more than $150 million. Their conduct warrants investigation, not just on Uranium One but a host of possible special-dealing allegations.

The long-standing allegations of influence peddling involving the Clinton have never been fully investigated, and the call for such an investigation is not prejudging the results. I have long questioned the likelihood that Trump committed a crime associated with Russian collusion during the campaign. Nevertheless, I supported the special counsel investigation and the congressional investigations.

In the same vein, I fail to see why the public should not have an equally transparent, independent investigation of the Clinton controversies. The Trump allegations raise concerns over foreign influence in our election while the Clinton allegations raise concerns over foreign influence in our government.

The government may not be able to supply complete answers, but it can supply a complete record. The result is likely to embarrass many in Washington, in both parties, but the public is being played like chumps by those manipulating these investigations for political advantage. Without a full investigation on both sides, we are unlikely to remove the doubts of so many citizens about the conduct of our leaders.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.


170 thoughts on “The Clinton Cash: The Russian Uranium Indictment And The Lingering Questions Over Influence Peddling [UPDATED]”

  1. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first. Ayn Rand

  2. There is a very interesting and thorough discretion of the players (who are all interrelated) over at: @chillum on Twitter. IMO this is a govt. website, a honeypot. Still it provides useful info. The names in the connecting dots might surprise people! (This is a religiously pro-Trump point of view but still has good intel–probably because the IC writes it!)

  3. The result is likely to embarrass many in Washington, in both parties, but the public is being played like chumps by those manipulating these investigations for political advantage. Without a full investigation on both sides, we are unlikely to remove the doubts of so many citizens about the conduct of our leaders.

    If by chumps you mean ignorant tools of the progressive, administrative state, then absolutely.

    More popcorn please!

        1. Mars Bar 58 gm 260 calories
          Pop corn without butter 57 gm 212 calories
          Butter 14 gm 102 calories or 56 gm 408 calories

          Light on the butter could have more calories than a Mars Bar

              1. It’s entirely non-conformist; like much of what I post on this blog. And for that my guilt is my pleasure. 😉

        1. Darrin, my comment to my friend Olly had a greater meaning than your puny brain can ever understand.

  4. Since the Mueller investigation is secret, Turley could not possibly comment on it with anything approaching informed opinion based on the facts: Turley doesn’t know the facts–they’re secret.

    So he BS because he wants to be a national player in the worst way. Thus he keeps his name in the headlines attached to the limelight of the Trump periphery by defaming the Clinton Foundation bc that’s how inveterate careerists cut their teeth with the right wing money machine…he’ll be a revered guest on FOX National News for the week bc of this. Go after Clinton for a 14th investigation. Clinton is a private citizen.

    Why not just gin up another investigation into 9/11 or the Bush / Cheney war crimes attendant to an illegal invasion of Iraq? Those are much bigger crimes than shoehorning some charity. Yup, Turley is likely pissed that he’s not a player in the Mueller investigation and is a mere observer like the rest of us: On the outside looking in at an historical investigation of a corrupt bigoted president.

    Perceived lost opportunity and Ressentiment. Turley is acting like a bad American. Give it all to charity and get thee to a monastery. Go now, and say no more.

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. (for humanity, not yourself, Turley)
    –Horace Mann

    1. Turley has won many victories for humanity in the area of human rights. What have you done?

        1. Turley will have what he has done listed in his own bio. Alternatively look it up.

          What have you done?

      1. What have I done? I’m answering your buffoonish question. Because you lack the requisite intelligence to engage my post in any meaningful way, I’ll play.

        Breast cancer charity work and music lessons for the disadvantaged. I’m sure my accomplishments dwarf anything you’ve done but I’m not here for a peeing contest.

        Do you shine Turley’s shoes as well?

        How does regurgitating a dead issue like Uranium1 exculpate Turley for damaging the country with his big mouth and expertise?

        Trump is likely a Russian agent and you’re worried about a charity? Good god, people like you are what’s wrong with this country Allan.

        1. Darrin: So you have performed charity. Congratulations. Sam Walton may or may not have been charitable but he put a lot of people to work so they wouldn’t need charity. Do you know what Maimonides said was the highest level of charity? In essence to give a needy person a job so they never have to ask for charity again.

          I don’t find your charity work to be that great of an accomplishment even though it may make you feel good and provide you income. Understand, I think charity is great, but it doesn’t sound that you have done anything spectacular so who are you to make such spurious comments about Turley who, by nature of his education and his educating others is protecting everyone’s civil liberties. Understand politically I believe Turley is on the other side of the line from me except where civil liberties are concerned.

          As far as your comment “answering your buffoonish question”, you are a boor and not a very bright one nor a very productive one.

  5. Firstly, there has been no evidence of uranium leaving the country and/or going to Russia. That would take an entirely different realm of approvals. The sale of the company was from one foreign owned entity to another, for the sake of profit, ie., money made by the consumption of uranium in the US and/or with US approval.

    Secondly, when someone is representing the people of the US, ie., in the Congress, Senate, or White House, their financial structure should be 100% open to view and scrutiny. If the Clintons are to be investigated for financial issues while HC was secretary of state and while running for the Presidency, which is entirely appropriate, then Trump’s financial ingredients while he was running, and absolutely while he is President should be open for review.

    Investigate the bejesus out of all of them. Let’s have a look at Trump’s tax returns. There should be absolutely no exceptions or privileges. Above all let’s have a look at the biggest crook of them all, our President, who openly states that he uses the bankruptcy laws to facilitate his business(s). It is already fact that Trump and Kushner have used hundreds of millions of tax payer money earmarked for low income housing to enhance their million dollar condo projects.

    This whole thing is a cesspool. I agree with Turley on this one. “The only question is whether it succeeded. For that, we would need an independent and full investigation.’, an independent and full investigation.

    Now let’s hear it from those that would pillory Clinton but afford Trump the right to keep his sh*t all hidden because they voted for him. It really does come down to whose side one is on.

    1. Investigate da Clintons and da Trump and Kushners. Trump want to block Bannon cause he has got the goods big time plus he hates da krooked Kush.

      1. Ken, did you hear about Bannon being subpoenaed to testify before Congress because of questions Sloppy Steve refused to answer? They say Bannon has already testified before Mueller’s Grand Jury. What’s it mean? And why isn’t Turley posting about that–yet???

        1. On vacation so I catch a bit of da news. Flipped da channel and saw Fox. Turley’s need is in da Fox universe.

          1. Have a good time on vacation, Ken. Maybe Turley’s waiting for executive privilege to be invoked. But, unless I read it wrong, Bannon already appeared before the Grand Jury. Maybe executive privilege doesn’t apply to Grand Jury testimony???

            1. I read it wrong. Surprise, surprise. Bannon was subpoenaed to testify before a Grand Jury.

      1. Granted, the statement needs qualification. Hillary Clinton was not involved in the process of transferring the uranium to Canada and then allegedly onto Europe. The main point of contention regarding Clinton and all this is her and hubby’s connections to the financial end, the companies, Canadian, Russian, or whatever that contributed/paid off? the Clintons that were involved in the profiteering from the ‘deals’. When owned by the Canadian company the transfer of uranium out of the country was scrutinized by the American oversight structure. The Russian involvement is no different than other stuff in this global economy.

        This should be investigated and if it is then all similar stuff, including Trump’s, should be investigated as well. Trump’s financial dealings with Russia are well beyond the level of that of the Clinton’s. He is President, an entire single part of our government. Clinton was Secretary of State, one of many positions the uranium deal had to transit. What we seem to have here is, by virtue of being in the highest office in the land, Trump is exempt from the same level of scrutiny for lower offices. It should be the other way around.

        In essence, Americans elected one of the sleaziest liars to ever come along to the Presidency and give him a level of omnipotence that only protects him from being found out for what he is. Above all, Americans have the right to know who their President is, everything, absolutely everything. Otherwise, we just elect royalty for four years. Isn’t that what the inception of the country was all about; to get rid of privileged overlords? We have as a President a self admitted manipulator of the bankruptcy laws, one who does everything possible to avoid paying taxes, one who is a member of the club that like Leona Helmsley believes that those at the higher levels don’t have to pay taxes. There is a serious disconnect here between our President and the people he leads. Trump can be showered with accolades for ‘telling it like it is; but then let’s look seriously at what it is.

        1. Isaac said, “Now let’s hear it from those that would pillory Clinton but afford Trump the right to keep his sh*t all hidden because they voted for him.”

          “Afford Trump the right to keep his sh*t hidden…” You say that as if everything there was to know about Barack Obama was reported on and fully disclosed to the voters. And how much continues to be hidden by Hillary and Bill Clinton? Well, Wikileaks helped in that regard, but there is still a whole lot being hidden from public scrutiny.

          So what would you like to hear? How Trump’s campaign was being spied on by the Obama administration? How the media have given Trump a full colonoscopy, yet had little interest in asking a single question about Hillary’s ‘pneumonia’ after she literally collapsed on the anniversary of 9/11 just weeks before the election?

          And why don’t we hear too much about how Barack Obama voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico? No, we just hear nonstop from the media that Trump is a mentally ill racist xenophobe who supports idiotic policies.

        2. And when you say “Americans have the right to know who their President is, everything, absolutely everything.” We couldn’t agree more. As far as I can tell, the media are doing their best to report on all things Trump right down to commenting on his weight and his two scoops of ice-cream.

          So why do you suppose the media had little interest in reporting on who Barack Obama is, or sharing with voters “everything, absolutely everything” about him – including his close associations over the years with Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Edward Said?

          The media had little interest in covering Obama critically at all – even though there was plenty to cover – from the IRS targeting conservative groups to Fast and Furious and Eric Holder’s corrupt DOJ and more.

          Yes Trump is rough around the edges, tells lies, and will never have a way with words, but he’s our duly elected president and he is doing the job he was hired to do. The media, on the other hand, is not doing its job – it is pursuing an agenda.

          It has now been over one year of multiple ongoing investigations into Trump’s campaign, and thus far all evidence of collusion and corruption points to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats – going all the way back to the DNC primary rigging and leaking debate questions to Hillary. But again, the media have little interest in reporting on the actual findings preferring instead to talk nonstop about President Trump being a mentally ill racist.

          I can tell you that the nonstop race card that the Dems and the media have been playing is growing very tiresome. And the sad thing is that it’s all they’ve got. They’ll need more than that to win big in the midterms.

          1. TBob

            I hope you appreciate that the facts are that Obama did inherit Bush’s graph. Obama was President for eight years, seven of which saw the graph on the right. A new administration has no real effect on the economy until at least well into the second year. That’s just common sense. So, Trump did inherit the upward economy of the graph on the right. Obama did inherit the downward economy of the graph on the left, however, the downward trend was reversed in the early years of the Obama administration and for most of his term Obama presided over a recovering economy, for which he was responsible. You can draw all the cartoons you want but it doesn’t change the facts. It simply shows how far one’s head is up one’s a**.

            Trump inherited a recovering and stable, perhaps not perfect, economy. Unemployment had been checked and substantially reduced. Wages were beginning to rise. The stock market had been rising for several years. Do some research, read a newspaper.

            1. The last recessionended in June, 2009.
              As per Isaac’s statement that “A new administration has no real effect on the economy until well into the second year”, it seems pretty clear that Obama didn’t end the recession after c.5 months in office.
              There are clear advantages in starting a presidency when the economy has already bottomed out.
              The flip side of that is the advantage of leaving office just before things turn south.
              The most extreme speculative mania ever in the stock market was the “” speculative bubble of the 1990s.
              That massive bubble started to unravel in March, 2000, about 10 months before Bill Clinton left office.
              I was talking with a friend a few days before the 2000 Bush-Gore election.
              We both agreed that it looked like a dead heat, but I commented that whoever the winner is, he would not have the favorable tailwinds that helped Clinton when he became president.
              A president will ultimately get credit or blame for the performance of tge economy during his administration.
              And a president who starts an administration as things as already turning around is at an advantage over one whose administration’s gets started as the economy has crested.

            2. “A new administration has no real effect on the economy until at least well into the second year.”

              That is true when bills have to be passed, but in this case, business was looking towards a decrease in regulations which can have an immediate effect even before the first regulation is canceled. The left as exemplified by the economist Krugman said the stock market would tank. I thought that was nonsense and started to invested more heavily in the stock market as soon as Trump was elected and to date have made a lot of money. That capital earned will be moved into business in the near future.

              Had Obama been able to remain in office we would have seen the arrow progress in the same direction for another 4 years and then if a Trump was elected we would see the arrow going up. You would still be saying the same things because you are too invested in your ideology and that makes your viewpoints near meaningless.

              1. Allan

                Your argumentative structure is no less selective than Trump’s, and that is telling. The momentum since the mid seventies which brought in a transfer of wealth from a robust middle class to the upper crust, at the expense of tax revenue from all sources has been ridden and will be ridden by all the Presidents and administrations. The top end pays for the elections so this is how an oligarchy works.

                The Bush administration inherited the general shifting of wealth as well as the Dot Com rise and sputter, however, the Dot Com scenario is what saved the US economy from a faster decline. The tech revolution is in league with the industrial revolution and is now being followed by the energy revolution. The ups and downs of economies are almost natural. However, it was Bush that reduced federal income by lowering taxes with no benefits to the economy. Reagan openly cited his reducing federal income with increasing spending as the primary cause of the economic woes that caused Bush to look bad, raise taxes, etc. It’s kind of like math. It was the little Bush who caught having to pay for one war, not only bungled it, at great and unnecessary expense, but started and bungled another; that was entirely necessary. This was the tipping point that turned a ‘natural’ ebb and flow of the economic rhythm of the US into the worst recession/depression since the 30s.

                As far as Obama is concerned, he stabilized the mess left by Bush and tinkered in the direction of progress as best he could. Memory is short and you remember what you want, see what you want, hear what you want. Try and drift back to the five to six years when the Republican Party obstructed almost everything Obama attempted to put forth; even when it was good for the US. Obama was no saint and performed sometimes in an other than ideal Presidential manner. However his was the administration that presided over the righting of the ship and the upward climb of the US economy. Obstruction is part of both parties. However it seems that presently the right is obstructing itself. This time around it is all on the right.

                Just like Reagan’s nonsense, a few bones are being tossed. Nothing has been done for any long term strength. Not that it isn’t possible, but so far all bluster and tweets.

                1. I note a lot of words from Isaac, but he doesn’t touch on the essential point that businesses make decisions based on what they believe the future will be. A reduction of regulations that impair business pushes businesses to act as quickly as possible to get ahead of their competition.

                  As usual, Issac is full of hot air and empty of content.

                2. Isaac, ..
                  After a c. 16 month 1981-1982 recessions, “Reagan’s nonsense” saw GDP growth that averaged 4.5% for the last 6 years of his administration.

                  1. GDP is the total value of everything produced by all the people and companies in the country. It doesn’t matter if they are citizens or foreign-owned companies. If they are located within the country’s boundaries, the government counts the value. When the average middle class worker is seen in the Reagan upturn, the increase in wages and quality of life is more negative than the overall picture. Clinton profited by the tech revolution but also massaged the economy instead of performing the ‘big’ moves as seen with the Reagan, Bush, and now Trump administrations. Reagan’s GDP growth was temporary as Bush who followed inherited the result of the situation which did not endure and focused on ‘the economy which it is’.

                    The difference is the Republican penchant for short term ‘large’ moves and how that appears to be better for the average American when in fact it is only better for the top end. When done at the scale of Reagan dire results were averted, not by any inherent value of this formula but by the tech revolution that truly belonged to America from the 50s. Bush was an exaggeration of Reagan with some bad luck and stupidity thrown in. The result is history; it has exacerbated the widening gap between what made America great and where America is going, ie GDP grows but the average worker does less well.

                    With Trump this is even more acute in its planning for short term gains but reality of long term downward trend.

                    In the end, Reagan spiked the economy and produced a wealthier America for a time but pushed the average middle class wage earner further downward. Bush took the heat and Clinton came along at the right time where perhaps no big moves were necessary. The little Bush was simply a disaster. Obama plugged the holes. In the end it is our system that is ruining America. We live in an oligarchy where the best interests of the average American are seen through the dark glasses of financial assessments such as GDP and other thermometers. The quality of life, gauged by elements other than the GDP has been eroding and will continue to erode under Trump and the Republicans. Long term thinking is what America needs, not short term nonsense that the next administration inherits.

                    Stability is missing and momentum is waining. It’s time to restructure the system by taking ‘big bucks’ out of our choosing of representatives and transitioning into a multi party system where it is not ‘us’ against ‘them’ but common sense, cooperation, and what works. The downfall of most great civilizations came due to the inability to adapt and transition.

                    1. Isaac,…
                      When you mention Reagan and then Bush, it isn’t clear if you’re referring to Bush 41, or Bush 43.
                      It would be easier to follow the sequence you’re mentioning if you “label” or “numbed” the two different Bush administrations.

              2. Isaac,…
                You stated that “Reagan’s GDP growth was temporary”.
                EVERY economic expansion and recession is “temporary”, in that none are “eternal”.
                But a 6 year expansion averaging 4.5% GDP growth is mors than a mere blip on the screen; it’s significant.
                The unemployment rate of nearly 10% that Reagan inherited from Carter was at 5.5% at the end of Reagan’s presidency.
                Average household income increased by c. 70% during his administration.
                It’s true, as you pointed out, that the wealth gap has grown since the 1970s.
                I haven’t compared the income disparity increase of the Reagan administration to the wealth gap that kept expanding through the Obama administration.
                It would take more time and bandwidth than I now have to see if the income differential gap widened more under one administration than the other.
                There are multiple factors involved in the 40+ year period where middle class income growth lagged that of the wealthiest 1%.
                Since the unemployment rate drops nearly 50%, it’s likely that the 1980s Reagan administration saw a strong income increase for those at the “lower economic rung”.
                I will add one note, and this is something that I mentioned frequently in the 1990s, during the manic stock market rise
                Much was made of the 1980s “decade of greed”….e.g., the movie “Wall Street” and similar media condemnation of excesses in the financial market.
                The 1990s insane speculation in the stock,market, and deriratives as well, made the “decade of greed” look modest by comparison.
                But the 1990s level of greed was not highlighted, or even mentioned much, in relation to the “greedy” 1980s.
                Media-wise, some greed was better than
                others, and ( media-wise) the 1990s brand of gree d was more acceptable.

              3. Allan,…
                Paul Krugman spoke confidently about the global stock market crash that initially ( for a
                few hours) folloewd Trump’s upset election victory.
                He didn’t just say that the markets WILL crash at some point….he said that they ARE crashing because of Trump’s election.
                His “short answer” was that the markets “would never recover”.
                Krugman was not only wrong, he was spectacularly wrong in his Nov.9th, 2017 statements.
                Fast forward to last month….Krugman now confidently states that Trump had nothing to do with the sharp stock market rally.
                This is one reason why Krugman is regarded as a damn joke; he’s sure that the markets are in a tailspin, and will remain in a tailspin, because of Trump’s election.
                NOW, he states that Trump gad little or nothing to do with the stock market rally.
                So Krugman says Trump’s election victory was causing a serious, protracted market crash.
                He ends up with egg on his face, and then taljs out of the other side of his mouth and now ckaims that Trump has nothing to do with the sharp rise in the market.
                His position is that “if things tank, it’s due to Trump; if things go right, Trump has nothing to do with it.

            3. Sure Isaac, Obama did some good things to right the ship as you say – though sequestration was not one of them – and he had some stable, slow growth numbers to hand over to Trump. But the Fed kept rates at zero for nearly all of Obama’s presidency, raising them only one time in over eight years. And as you say, this meant Obama’s monetary policies had created the beginning of a boom cycle with a lot of cheap credit flooding the market which began inflating a bubble. So despite Trump’s pro-growth, pro-business agenda, with tax cuts and deregulation, etc – the bubble that started under Obama because of the monetary policies his admin and the Fed enacted over eight years – that bubble will inevitably burst. It’s a matter of when and how bad. So far the Fed has raised rates four times since Trump was elected and the markets have rallied breaking records. This shows the level the optimism and consumer confidence under a Trump presidency that was absent during the Obama years. And remember, Trump saw what was going on back during the debates. So we’ll see what he is able to do moving forward and I just thank God every day that Hillary Clinton is not in the White House.

    2. “Investigate the bejesus out of all of them. Let’s have a look at Trump’s tax returns. ”

      The question at hand is what people did while in power or while candidates for higher office. Trump’s tax returns have probably been looked at more than almost anyone else’s in the country. They have been reviewed by the IRS multiple times. They have been reviewed by the gaming commissions in NJ and Nevada. New York City has reviewed his dealings everytime he built a building or whenever a complaint was made.

      Therefore, investigate the dealings of politicians with Russians that should not have occurred. They are doing that to Trump and now to Hillary. Hopefully, the investigations will reveal misdoings of a lot of our elected officials and the public will respond by voting them out of office.

      1. Isaac,…
        The “ scenario” in the 1990s stock market was a disaster waiting to happen.
        When the speculative bubbles burst, the fallout likely to be unpleasant and severe.
        By any historical norms and measurements, that 1990s speculative insanity in the market far exceeded anything in modern stock market history.
        Price to book, price to earnings, price to sales, price to FCF were all off the charts.
        If you try to find any period in stock market history where those valuations were stretched to the extremes of the mid-to-late 1990s, you will fail.
        The short-term benefit/ “feel good” boosts of speculative bubbles are followed by severe dislocations after the bubble peaks.
        That is the scenario that faced the winner of the 2000 election.
        After a c.45% decline, the stock was starting to rebound when 9-11 happened.
        So there were two enormous “double-whammies” that hit full-force shortly after Clinton left office.
        Those dual disasters didn’t develop overnight, and Clinton was gortunate in that his term ended in Jan. 2001, rather than Jan. 2002.

    3. It would be a major shift negatively in Privacy Law to open IRS returns to public view. A much better approach would be to tighten oversight of corporate formations, so that ownership and corporate purpose cannot be concealed from the rest of society. If you look into the Uranium One scandal, you’ll see how shell companies outside Russia were erected to shield the ownership identities of corrupt Russians. The Panama Papers were a major lesson on how shell companies are used to protect corrupt businesspeople. We could eliminate shell companies as an underworld tool by officially vetting new corporate entities, and pinning down ownership to positively identified individuals.

  6. Hillary felt comfortable – and is above reproach – because her heart was pure. She knew that she would never sell herself to contributors and so there was absolutely nothing wrong with her accepting A LOT OF MONEY from shady characters who believed she would provide a quid pro quo for their largesse. When your heart is pure, you can absolutely do no wrong.

    And don’t forget, the money was for good causes. Well, since the Clintons were dead broke when he left the WH, weren’t the Clintons themselves a very good cause?

  7. Sounds like Putin Got a hold of the Jeffrey Epstein tapes and was blackmailing both Clinton and tromp with PP tapes

    1. The main significance of the indictment against Lambert is that the FBI’s investigation of the Mikerin scheme never ended. That, in turn, explains why the FBI withheld details of the Mikerin investigation from CFIUS. The FBI wanted to keep its intelligence assets–including an undercover informant–from being exposed in just such a way that it’s investigation into Russian bribery, kickback, extortion and money-laundering schemes could continue producing valuable intelligence in the vital interests of our national security.

      Surely Turley knows that. Or does he? The withholding of knowledge of the FBI’s Mikerin investigation from CFIUS for reasons of national security might raise questions about how such decisions to withhold information are made and who, exactly, makes those decisions. Clearly, Secretary of State Clinton was not the one who decided to withhold details of the FBI’s Mikerin investigation from CFIUS. Surely Turley knows that as well. Or does he?

      But, but, but . . . [sarcasm alert] What if there was a “deep-state conspiracy” to investigate Russian money-laundering schemes long before Trump even thought about running for President? And the FBI kept that “deep-state” investigation going all the way down to yesterday’s Lambert indictment almost a year after Trump was elected President. It’s so unfair that the FBI does exactly what it’s supposed to do. What more proof of a deep-state conspiracy do we need? Crooked H; lock her up!

      P. S. How does Trump get re-elected without Crooked-H to run against? Lock her up ASAP!

      1. You might be onto something, L4D:

        “When the Soviet Union was breaking up in the early 1990s, Mogilevich (AKA ‘The Boss of Bosses,’ AKA ‘The Brainy Don’) suborned a Russian judge to spring a ruthless and canny lifetime criminal from a Siberian prison. His name was Vyacheslav ‘Yaponchik’ Ivankov.

        “Four months later, in March 1992, Ivankov arrived in the United States to organize a new criminal network. He would take the disparate elements of already-established Russian-speaking criminals and use them to create a sophisticated, well-managed operation that could launder funds and generate cash flow as part of a transnational network. But authorities had no idea where he was.

        “‘And then,’ recounted a former FBI agent in Robert I. Friedman’s book ‘Red Mafiya’, “we found out he was living in a luxury condo in Trump Tower.’

        “The moment the Feds spotted him, he vanished again, only to resurface later in an Atlantic City casino: Trump’s Taj Mahal.

        “Thus, by the early 1990s, both the arrival of Russian organized crime in the US and the strange attraction of Trump properties for Russian mobsters were on the Bureau’s radar.

        1. Oy geveldt! WWAS, oy geveldt! FTR, I was not onto anything even remotely like the issues raised in the article to which you linked us all. Those issues are way far too big for the handful of marbles that I still have left to work with. For the time being all I can think of to say is that Robert Swan Mueller III had damned well better be up to the task before him. Muller needs help. Lots of help. Oy geveldt!

          1. P. S. It appears that several media critics, including The Columbia Journalism Review and some guy at The Los Angeles Times, have raised questions about the “forensic journalism” of Russ Baker, the founder of “Who. What. Why.” On the other hand, Baker has never yet been forced to print a retraction and has never yet been sued at all, let alone successfully sued. So there! Given Trump’s well-documented history of suing people who dare publically to criticize him, it seems likely that there’s nothing false in the “Who.What.Why.” article to which WWAS posted a link.

            Even so, I remain extremely wary of anyone who argues, as Russ Baker has, that George H. W. Bush might know something about the assassination of JFK that has never come to light. That sort of thing does not bolster my confidence in Baker. I’m just saying.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          “For now at least, we aren’t aware of any evidence that Clinton knew anything about the FBI investigation. If anything, the Hill’s reporting suggests the opposite.

          The Hill article quoted Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, saying that he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case.

          ” ‘I had no idea this case was being conducted,’ a surprised Hosko said in an interview,” the Hill article reported.

          At least one key lawmaker — then-Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time — also said he did not know about the investigation.

          If the assistant FBI director at the time knew nothing of the investigation, then Clinton — someone in a different department and several rungs higher in the organizational chart — might not have known about it.”

          Please focus your attention on the last sentence cited above. The assistant director at the FBI criminal division didn’t know about the FBI counter-intelligence division’s Mikerin investigation. What’s it mean? The FBI criminal division is informed about investigations when recommendations are made for criminal charges to be brought through indictments. Otherwise, the FBI counter-intelligence division keeps an incredibly tight lid on its own ongoing investigations. Once again, surely Turley knows that. Or does he?

    1. Oh, if only readers could take an even bet who, between you and Trump, is closer to being a genius……………

      Add HRC v. Trump to that proposed bet. You know, the woman who did not even visit several purple states she eventually lost, even after her husband told her to fix that omission.

      1. Sorry if I erred in understanding your point. I’m tired, reread your post, and see your quoting Trump may have been harmless………please continue with your regular programming………

      2. I should have used a happy smile instead of a wink. I am being serious. This country has a very stable genious and the better of the two candidates sitting in the Oval Office today. No doubt about it. Crooked Hillary was coughing and fainting and collapsing and having mild seizures and hiding from the public for nearly her entire campaign. Crooked Sickly Hillary also has very bad judgment, or she would have listened to her husband’s advice.

        Also, the only way to restore the rule of law is to investigate and prosecute the Clintons to the full extent of the law.

        1. TBob, I worry. What happens if things were found that were criminal and involved any or all of the three, Hillary, Bill, Obama? What happens if any or all go to jail? As much as I dislike all of them I don’t find that a pleasant thought.

    2. A healthy perverted racist in da White House. Cheatin on da wife with a new baby is low low low.

  8. The Clintons should be thoroughly investigated, but by a non-biased investigator, if such an animal may be found anywhere near the Hill.

    We need to find out if big donors bought anything, or just hoped to do so.

    We also need to investigate allegations that Bill Clinton funneled money to Clinton donors when he was the UN rep in charge of the distribution. We need to determine, as well, if the donors actually benefited Haitians, or themselves, as has been alleged.

    Did Obama rubber stamp anything that the board approved, including Uranium One? Did the board approve anything that Hillary recommend, and was that the case in Uranium One?

    That certainly is a lot of money, and for a protracted time, for merely the hope of influence. Usually, there would have to be some sort of return on the investment to keep donating so much, and in so coordinated a fashion. There were a series of beneficial events for the Clintons that led up to the approval of Uranium One, and some benefits continued to flow in afterwards.

    This is not the first time that Hillary has been accused of selling access to radioactive ore. Decades ago, it was a reverse arrangement alleged for a big donor miner and Eastern European resources.

    Does the law apply equally or not? Can we finally investigate her thoroughly without giving her a pass?

    1. Idiot, how many times have they been investigated? Are you really so stupid to think that all investigations were rigged? Gowdy, Issa, etc. were just going through the motions and not trying to find fault. If so, then why are you not calling for an investigation into them. You are despicable.

      1. YNOT what you call an investigation was more of a lack of it, just like one would call your education.

  9. This is one of dozens of reasons to investigate this woman and her family. Like all mob members, it’s the tax crimes will sink her and that shell charity. Less than 5% of the donation we’re used for the charitable intent. The lack of morality and common decency is mind blowing.

    1. Your assertation that “Less than 5% of the donation we’re used for the charitable intent” is wrong.

  10. Immediately after HRC Titanic and the US agreed to allow Russia to import 20% of the USA’s uranium (you know, that harmless stuff), Moscow hired Bill for a speech. Of course it’s pure coincidence that Moscow doubled Bill’s fees overnight, from about $250k to a half mill.

    Nothing to see here folks….move along…………

    1. Rosatom has no license to export uranium from the US. The “trucking company A” listed in the indictment against Mark Lambert presumably had a license to transport uranium to Canada for refinement. It has been reported that some of that uranium was exported to Japan and other Asian countries the names of which I can’t remember. There have been no reports of US uranium being exported to Russia. Because the Kazakhstan uranium is much closer to Russia. BTW, gaining Uranium One’s mining rights for the Kazakhstan uranium (one-fifth of the world’s proven reserves) was the main reason for Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One.

  11. “I did not have any strangers here. The Lincoln Bedroom was never sold. That was one more false story we have had to endure, and the facts will show what the truth is.”

    “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

    “No Clinton Foundation funds—dedicated to Haiti or otherwise—were used to pay for Chelsea’s wedding. It’s not only untrue, it’s a personal insult to me, to Hillary, and to Chelsea and Marc.”

    ‘Absolutely Not’ a Mistake to Accept Foreign Money
    “… we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate…”

    “The former president made clear, however, that he would not stop accepting big money for speeches, saying, “I gotta pay our bills.”

    Like Bill said, isn’t this just another false story the Clintons have had to endure? Haven’t they been through enough already? sarc/on

    1. No they haven’t. There is still investigation, trial, conviction, fines to pay and time to serve.. Not just the Clintons but their entire criminal apparatus.

  12. Hm. It seems like nobody named Clinton actually, y’know, DID anything. You just keep saying stuff like “raises questions about contributions.” But there really aren’t any questions. Lots of people made donations to Bill’s charity. Hillary was not involved. She didn’t do anything out of the ordinary. So this all just seems kind of lame and desperate.

    1. What a hypocrite. We’ve spent probably $20M investigating Trump for over a year. And he’s yet been found to have done absolutely nothing.

      Turley and Judge Napolitano have aptly explained in words even you might understand that, HRC indeed committed several felonies for which she was not charged. It’s easy to connect the dots that the reason is because of massive obvious corruption at the FBI and DOJ (Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey are all connected). So many lies have been told about HRC’s crimes, the biggest one I can think of being that the alleged crime requires intent, which it does not.

      General Patraeus was convicted of felony abuse of state secrets, for his “crime” of storing state secrets in an unlocked drawer in his private home surrounded by armed military police. If readers propose General Petraeus’ actions prove his “intent” to share state secrets, I have a big red bridge in San Francisco for sale.

      1. Haha. He said “Judge Napolitano.” As if. Pro tip: if you’re relying on legal “authority” which is a semi-neurotic, rabid, echo-chamber mouthpiece, pack a toothbrush.

        This is to “but judge, my lawyer said it was okay” joey

        1. Marky Mark Mark – as I have told you before you are not old enough, experienced enough or wise enough to give professional tips. You are still at the rank amateur level.

          1. Paul what are you talking about? Mark M. is an assistant file manager of a small law firm. He makes sure all the big paper folders are adequately placed under A, B, and C. He is overseen by someone who knows the entire alphabet.

        2. Mark, you hit the trifecta – 3 idiot responses for one comment. Shoeless Paulie with nothing to add.

          1. Ynot – how did you know I like to go barefoot in the house? Or that Marky Mark Mark has nothing to add?

    2. The brits have a perfect word for people like you. THICK. It’s for people who are lame and desparate.

    1. Phantosmia can be a symptom of Alzheimers.
      Could be burning toast, rotten eggs, or burning tires types of smells the person claims to smell.

    2. That smell has been arouond since 1898 when the first Fabianest Progressives were imported to the USA by Woodrow Wilson.

      1. Ah, yes, we should return to the good old days of the late 1800s. Robber barons and all that.

  13. Please let me update you on the more likely Clinton Operation. As Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was in a position to kill the sale of the Uranium which had been in the works for a while. So, the more like case is Bill Clinton speaks to the Russians and says “CROSS MY PALM WITH SILVER OR HILLARY WILL PISS ON YOUR PARADE! NO PAPER TRAIL, NO RECORDS OF THE CONVERSATIONS! That’s why he is known as Slick Willy!

Comments are closed.