Hillary Clinton: Cold Creepiness with a Side of Corruption

by Thomas L. Knapp…….

On October 16, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took her public pity party (and not so subtle hopes of somehow magically overturning the 2016 election) abroad, calling out WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as “a tool of Russian intelligence …. a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator” in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s show “Four Corners.”

Clinton’s evidenceless accusations don’t seem to  carry much weight with Assange himself. He doesn’t find her “a credible person.” “It is not just her constant lying,” he says. “It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.”

Was Clinton’s latest lunge at Assange and WikiLeaks a preemptive strike? An attempt, perhaps, to get ahead of extreme ugliness in the coming news cycle?

On the same day, the US  Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed that its former director, James Comey, had begun drafting his concluding statement on the “Servergate” investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information — a statement technically exonerating Clinton, although between the lines the final draft clearly admitted that she didn’t face indictment because, well, she’s Hillary Clinton — months before even interviewing Clinton and other key witnesses.

Then, a day after Clinton’s diatribe, news broke that the FBI knew as early as 2009 about Russian attempts to gain control of 20% of the US uranium supply and new uranium sales opportunities in the US through corrupt means, but covered that information up for several years.

In fact, the cover-up remains at least partially in force. The Hill reports that in the run-up to last year’s election, the US Department of Justice (then under control of Hillary Clinton’s co-partisans in the Obama administration) threatened the FBI’s confidential informant in the case with criminal prosecution for violating a non-disclosure agreement if he sued to recover the money he’d spent helping the FBI make its case.  The informant’s lawyer is now seeking DoJ permission to talk to Congress about the case.

During the period in question, Russian sources paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to Hillary Clinton’s husband (former president Bill Clinton) and donated millions more to the family’s Clinton Foundation. And Clinton, at the time serving as US Secretary of State, dutifully bulldozed a  path through the American bureaucracy for Vladimir Putin. That sequence of events looks like what most people would call “bribery” and “influence peddling.”

What was that about nihilistic opportunists who do the bidding of dictators again?

If there was in fact collusion between the Russian government and a 2016 presidential campaign, it’s reasonable to ask: Were the Russians working with Trump’s campaign to defeat Clinton, or were the Russians paying back Clinton’s campaign for her faithful service to them by helping her gin up her claims of a Trump/Putin conspiracy? Or both? Or something else?

The effort to “Get Trump” may eventually bear fruit, but it’s starting to look like the effort to “Get Clinton” may do so first.


Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

11 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton: Cold Creepiness with a Side of Corruption

  1. Mueller is investigating President Trump & his team for a Russia connection. When Mueller was head of the FBI – they were investigating corruption by the Russians when the sale of 20% of America’s uranium reserves were being sold to Russia. Seems like Mueller should be investigating Mueller, you think? The uranium sale went through when Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Holder were in office, with Bill Clinton receiving $500,000 for a speech he made in Russia during this period. Don’t tell me that Obama was unaware of this uranium transaction. After the uranium sale went down, the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in donations. What a coincidence, eh?

    Americans and the rest of the world should be stunned by the fact that the Obama administration gave up 20% of America’s uranium reserves to our arch-enemy, Russia. Where did the uranium go? Exactly who made the $145 million in payoffs?

    This real Russian scandal is finally being investigated right now, and Hillary’s and the Left’s smoke screen will not stop it.

    1. A little more: The, or a, key witness in this mess was put under a Non-disclose Agreement (a gag order) with the threat of jail time if he divulged information about the uranium transfer by another of Obama’s Attorney Generals, Loretta Lynch. Stay tuned to see if present AG, Jeff Sessions, lifts the order and the witness is allowed to speak publicly to Congress.

      So far, the best reasons according to the Left in defense of the uranium sale are: It was a good deal because the value of uranium has gone down since then; and the uranium has not left America, yet. Not sure if their information is accurate or how they supposedly know this, but that’s what they said.

      1. The whys and wherefores of the uranium sale are interesting, but they sort of stand aside from the key fact of the matter:

        Whether it was a good deal or a bad deal “for America,” the circumstantial evidence makes a pretty good case for the claim that Hillary Clinton accepted bribes in return for acting as an agent of Vladimir Putin to ensure that the deal went through.

        In fact, that circumstantial evidence (non-circumstantial evidence would consist of things like provable communications between the parties making the deal) makes a better case for Hillary Clinton as pawn of Putin than any evidence so far presented makes to pin any similar charges on Trump.

        1. Yes, and it appears that there are some other “big names” involved that I did not list previously. Some journalistic bulldogs are working this story so get ready, and it goes without saying that it would be a good idea if these journalists each hired a body guard…or two, if they haven’t already.

  2. New info starting to flow everyday now:

    1) According to journalist Sara Carter, the non-disclosure agreement, gagged witness through his lawyer, has begun to shed more light on the uranium deal. Also, claimed are videos, etc.

    2) Previously, Hillary apologists said she might not have info on the uranium deal – even though her name is listed on one of the committees whose job was to know.

    3) Although some on the Left have stated that the uranium has not left America, someone disputed that and said that 75% of the uranium has already left this continent – meaning it didn’t just go to Canada, but instead has ended up overseas.

  3. Reported:

    The Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign and the DNC helped fund research of the dossier that smeared Donald Trump. Also heard but not substantiated was that Jeb Bush started this off during the presidential playoffs.

    On Page 1 of today’s edition, Oct. 25, The Miami Herald repeated this information, apparently from an article in the Washington Post, which described the dossier as a “now famous dossier,” when in fact it should be described as an “infamous dossier” because of the wild inaccuracies contained in it. If anyone bothers to read this article you “might” be led to believe that there was some truth in the dossier and Republicans have been trying to deflect the information. I wouldn’t necessarily call this “fake news” reporting, but rather skewed news as both sides of the story were not told.

    Also reported last night was that the “gag” order put on the FBI’s witness by Obama’s DOJ was unlawful. Congress has the right to interrogate the witness about the “uranium deal” and will sooner rather than later. All the while, Hillary Clinton has said that this issue has been debunked for years and it is “baloney.”

    1. I consider the dossier and the uranium deal to be two wildly separate issues.

      The uranium deal offers big-time circumstantial evidence of corruption on Clinton’s part.

      The dossier is opposition research. Every candidate and campaign worth its salt does its damnedest to dig up the dirt on its opponents (and on itself, for defensive preparation purposes). In fact, when I work in electoral politics, that’s a big part of what I do. While it’s INTERESTING that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were backers of the dossier operation, I don’t find it surprising or consider it a negative of any kind. OF COURSE they were doing oppo research. To not be doing oppo research would be unspeakably incompetent.

      1. I see your point, but it is said that the Democrats denied they had anything to do with the dossier, so they lied which is no surprise but does show a continuing pattern. This is not being naïve or caught up in something accidentally, just another flat out lie for all to see.

        Coming back to the uranium, to hear Obama, Hillary, Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of that bunch tell it, they are on top of all things at all times – so how could they miss the uranium sale?

        1. Well, yeah, they all lie about their campaign tactics. Not just Democrats. In the 2000 GOP primary, when literature started circulating in South Carolina claiming that John McCain had fathered an Africa-American child out of wedlock, the Bush campaign disclaimed all knowledge. Don’t know if they ever did get caught red-handed on that one, but anyone who believed their denials should get with me about some primo swamp lan … er, beach front property … I have for sale. In Tennessee.

  4. Last night:

    1) It was said that Hillary Clinton could be prosecuted for 13 charges stemming from the uranium sale.

    2) It was said that President Obama was kept informed in briefings about the FBI investigation of Russian influence, etc. about the possible uranium sale.

    3) The gag order on the FBI informant has been lifted and he supposedly will now be free to talk to Congress.

    4) Hard copy, videos, etc. are available and have already been looked at regarding the FBI informant’s input on the uranium sale issue.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.