by George Rasley, CHQ Editor
In a break with the Clinton-loving American establishment media, the UK’s Daily Mail recently detailed how Marc Elias, a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who launched what would become known as the anti-Trump “dirty dossier” denied involvement in the project for a year, even as reporters pressed him for information.
But a pair of New York Times reporters said Tuesday night on Twitter that Elias and others involved had lied about their ties to the arrangement.
“Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,” Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after The Washington Postlinked the dossier to Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie.
Kenneth Vogel, another Times journalist, tweeted: ‘When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying “You (or your sources) are wrong”.’
This kind of lying has become par for the course in Washington, but it is especially prevalent about anything that involves the Clintons.
The Uranium One scandal that has broken wide open this week isn’t new – it goes back to 2010 – and the relationship between foreign government contributions to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton’s speaking fees and policy-making by Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State were all detailed in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash.”
As our friend Matt Boyle put it in his 2016 coverage of Peter Schweizer’s appearance on ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Stephanopoulos was “floored” as two prominent journalists and the Republican Speaker of the House from his Clinton days, Newt Gingrich, laid out for him during a segment of the show just how bad the “Clinton Cash” book is for his old bosses.
During the show’s roundtable panel after “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer appeared for a lengthy interview, Stephanopoulos teamed with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile in an attempt to discredit Schweizer.
This, by the way, is the same Donna Brazile who lied about trying to tilt the Democratic primaries to Hillary Clinton and lied about feeding debate questions to the Clinton campaign.
Brazile admitted she hadn’t read “Clinton Cash.” Yet, without having read it, she proceeded to drop a series of rhetorical attacks on Schweizer. She also offered the Clinton campaign advice on how to attempt to get past Clinton Cash.
“Well, George, I haven’t read the whole book—I’m sure it’s still being rewritten somewhere because the newspapers and other publications are already disputing some of the facts and the claims in his book,” Brazile said according to Boyle’s reporting. “But there are more drippings in this book than juice or sauce and what the campaign needs to do—and they did it last week—is go ahead and respond to these allegations. They’re scurrilous. We’re going to see more of them as the campaign goes along but respond to them and continue to reach out to voters and ignore all of this background noise. That’s what they need to do.”
When Newt Gingrich, a member of that segment’s panel said, “Look, this isn’t a political problem—this is a historical problem,” Gingrich said. “The Constitution of the United States says you cannot take money from foreign governments without explicit permission of the Congress. They wrote that in there because they knew the danger of corrupting our system by foreign money is enormous.
“You had a sitting Secretary of State [husband] who radically increased his speech fees and there is a whole series of dots on the wall now where people gave millions of dollars who oh, by the way, happened to get taken care of by the State Department. You raised a good standard.
“And of course, having been on the Watergate Committee, she knew exactly what to do. She erased 33,000 emails. Richard Nixon only erased 18 minutes. So, you’re going to have a prima facie case that any jury would look at…”
Stephanopoulos and Brazile flatly refused to countenance any notion that what Hillary and Bill Clinton did was not just potentially illegal or presented a prima fascia appearance of illegality; they refused to even accept that it was wrong for a government official to accept money from a foreign government.
To his great credit Gingrich continued to press the point. “My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State—that is clearly illegal,” Gingrich said. “This is not about politics. It’s illegal. It’s dangerous to America to have foreign governments get in the habit of bribing people who happen to be the husband of the Secretary of State or next president of the United States.”
“I think there’s a very simple case here—the Constitution says you can’t take this stuff, we have federal laws that say you can’t take this stuff,” Gingrich said. “If this was any person but Hillary Clinton, they’d be under indictment right now for a clearly straightforward problem.”
Fast forward to 2017, House Republicans announced on Tuesday that the House Oversight Committee will investigate how the Obama administration’s Justice Department handled the deal that gave Russia control over 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.
Parroting the same tactics Democrats used when these allegations surfaced in “Clinton Cash” back in 2016, Democrats today were quick to charge that the GOP-led probes were “designed to distract attention” from the various investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
“These investigations were initiated on a partisan basis, and will shed no light on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, but then again they are not intended to do so,” Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-CA-28), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement Tuesday. “This may be good politics, but it is a disservice to the far more important cause of investigating Russian interference in our democracy and protecting our elections in 2018 and beyond from outside influence.”
The Uranium One deal took the cooperation of dozens of high-level Democratic appointees, the acquiescence of the FBI and various intelligence agencies, and then the active interference of the FBI and Obama Justice Department to cover up the bribery and pay-to-play by stopping the informant from testifying.
Now, as far as we can tell, as of today none of have come out publicly and said the conduct of Bill and Hillary Clinton documented by Peter Schweizer in “Clinton Cash,” and now apparently confirmed by an FBI informant is wrong, regardless of whether it proves to be illegal.
Back in 2016 Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin wrote what might well be the final epitaph for objective truth among Democrats this way, “almost any Democrat who’s not Clintons’ payroll will tell reporters and others privately that these are serious issues,” but none of them will say so publicly.
Democrats have become so corrupted by Hillary and Bill Clinton that the ability to speak for the truth and reject what Diana West calls “normalizing the abnormal” has died. Until Democrats rid themselves of the Clintons, and stop covering for them, the Democratic Party cannot be considered a legitimate political party; it is merely one cog in a vast conspiracy to justify and cover up the Clintons’ crimes.
Reprinted with permission from ConservativeHQ.com
