The Clintons Blood Money for a Uranium Deal With A Dictator in Kazakhastan

[Dems Will Win]

This is how low the Clintons can go. THESE PEOPLE ARE DONATING TENS OF MILLIONS TO THEM AND THEN EXPECTING GOD KNOWS WHAT FAVORS AS THEY DO BUSINESS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE HOPE HILLARY WILL BE PRESIDENT.

Let's be very clear about this. We're not just talking about Bill cashing in by smoking some cigars and telling some good stories to a bunch of banquet goers. It also means such smelly deals as him serving as an "advisor" to Dubai, when he coached their government on how to swing a port deal with the U.S. (that failed). That's after the oil sheiks shelled out $300,000 in 2002 to have Bill address one of their summits (There was also a direct link between Dubai and the investment fund with which Burkle and Clinton were partnered).

Then there was that revoltingly sleazy little deal revealed by The New York Times in which the former president served as a broker/fixer between a Canadian mining entrepreneur and the dictator of Kazakhstan, greasing through a multi-billion dollar uranium deal. Mr. Clinton's fee? A previously undisclosed "donation" of more than $30 million to his charitable Clinton Foundation from the grateful Canadian capitalist.

A honcho at a Canadian bank specialized in mining said the deal was a result of a "fantastic network" with Bill Clinton at its top.

None of this illegal, we think. And the money given to Clinton's foundation is not supposed to be the same personal funding that was used as a bridge loan to Hillary's campaign. And there's nothing against the law about a former president serving as a high-end errand boy for Arab Sheiks. Nor is it illegitimate to make a stack of dough fronting for dictators, pushing ghost-written books, or serving as hired jester for private corporate banquets. Except with the Clintons, of course, there's always the slippery questions of definition. Whose money is whose? Where does Bill's end and Hillary's begin? What's the line between personal funding and political funding? Charitable versus political donations?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/hillarys-5-million-dump_b_85534.html

PLEASE RECOMMEND IF THIS DISGUSTS YOU

[journalist3072]

1. Can we recommend the thread, if YOU disgust us?

[Dems Will Win]

2. Please do -- thanks

[Bicoastal]

3. I know that ONE person's going to vote for the Clintons...

[Dems Will Win]

5. I think Borat met Bill at the Airport to welcome him

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Yet, at least 10% of Americans will vote for Barack

thinking they are voting for Borat.

[TexasObserver]

4. This may be the sleaziest thing Bill has ever done. Do we need this in the White House?

[FrenchieCat]

6. No...I think that there are other stuff.........waiting to be paraded out....

Tax returns, and library and Foundation donors will be the next fight that we Democrats will have to justify for the Clintons.

I am so not looking forward to any of it!

[Rageneau]

7. This piece is another patchwork of complete lies about Clinton.

I read this story three times when it first came out and it was obvious that Clinton did nothing wrong at any step along the way.

Evil people try to twist this story to make him appear guilty of something by mere association. But the truth is, all he did was let this mining executive pay for an international trip he was going to take anyway, to raise money for his foundation, which provides medicine and food for the deathly ill in Africa.

Clinton did not personally profit from this trip one thin dime. He donated his time, which he can charge $10,000 an hour for when he wants to. What he did on this trip was raise a great deal of money for AIDS patients, and gain a commitment from a brutal dictator to expand human rights in his country.

Did the mining executive gain status because he showed up with Clinton? Probably. But if that's wrong, Bob Dole has to give back all his hard-ons since 1996. No, wait -- Dole's action were not as noble as Clinton's. Dole sold his influence for personal gain. Clinton used his influence to help the poor and needy.

Because Clinton-hatred makes otherwise reasonable people see only corrupt motives in the least word or gesture on the part of Bill and Hillary, stories like this are written in such a way as to make it appear that Clinton did wrong, when the truth is, it is the writer of the article who deserves our scorn.

[bridgit]

8. It may as well be suggested that his entire time in office was to set himself up...

after his presidency via avarice, sweetheart deals with the despots of the world, NAFTA via Wall-Mart, and personal sexual gratification.

I understand why you posted it here. You're trying to drive a even larger wedge issue between DUer's that support Clinton over Obama. I don't wish you any luck in that endeavor, in that most minds are already made up. But I find articles like these too narrow wherever they come from. I'm sure that other conservative Dems are out there reaping plenty.

By myopically focusing on what Bill Clinton is, or is not doing, every other unwholesome deal goes down without scrutiny. And they are legion. You will be busy most of your day just sourcing them out.

[Dems Will Win]

10. kick