Investors Business Daily (IBD). What a great source of editorial common sense it provides.
Its latest gem parodies a pathetic editorial the New York Times ran on Thursday, in which it desperately tried to make a case for an even hotter/heavier investigation of Trump/Russia collusion than the one which has yielded no actual evidence of such collusion yet (and God knows, they’ve tried to find it).
What IBD did, was to use the same structure as the Times editorial, but enumerate the reasons Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump should be the focus of the investigation – a point I have made several times here, including just this past week.
Here are key excerpts – enough, I hope to get you to read the entire editorial:
THE CLINTON FAMILY BUSINESS There may be no Clinton Foundation office in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but it is not for lack of trying. Bill Clinton received half a million dollars in 2010 for a speech he gave in Moscow, paid by a Russian firm, Renaissance Capital, that has ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation took money from Russian officials and oligarchs, including Victor Kekselberg, a Putin confidant. The Foundation also received millions of dollars from Uranium One, which was sold to the Russian government in 2010, giving Russia control of 20% of the uranium deposits in the U.S. — the sale required approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. What’s more, at least some of these donations weren’t disclosed. “Ian Telfer, the head of the Russian government’s uranium company, Uranium One, made four foreign 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 such donors,” the Times has reported.
JOHN PODESTA In March — that is, long after the election was over — it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman had failed to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company — Joule Unlimited — for which he served as director from 2010 to 2014, when he joined the Obama White House in 2014.
TONY PODESTA Mr. Podesta’s bother, who has close personal and business relations with Mrs. Clinton, was “key lobbyist on behalf of (Russia’s) Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics,” a March news story reported. The bank was “seeking to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country.” The report goes on to note that “Podesta’s efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia’s second largest bank.”
JOHN BREAUX Forbes magazine reports that Mr. Breaux, a former Senator from Louisiana who cut radio ads for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, represents Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia’s third largest bank, on “banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions.”
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN In March, Mr. Putin’s spokesman said that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with members of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign several times while she was running for president in 2016. Further, the campaign never disclosed the number or nature of these secret meetings.
Amazing, isn’t it? We go month after month after month with NO EVIDENCE that any collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign took place. But, based entirely on innuendo and, democrat-wise, a wing and a prayer, the demands that this investigation continue, even accelerate, continue.
But here we have voluminous evidence that Hillary Clinton, Hubby Bubba and key people in her campaign were neck deep in dealings with Russia – dealings Russia would no doubt love to continue in a Clinton administration. And we don’t hear any demands for an investigation at all. Certainly not from Democrats, and certainly not from our wonderful “neutral” media.
Then they wonder why people don’t trust them? They must be brain dead.
lets not forget the threat that russia made.
Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for example, things that happened during President Obama’s terms in office.
i wish they would leak those secrets.