Last week, Fox News posted a story, Hillary Clinton sided with Russia on sanctions as Bill made $500G on Moscow speech. It draws some interesting parallels between Hillary’ stance on the Magnitsky Act and Bill’s speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian bank linked to The Kremlin.
Much has been made of the Donald Jr. meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya but the smoke around Hillary on the same issue is generally ignored.
Natalia Veselnitskaya is the Russian lawyer who holds the same opinion as Hillary and Putin – eliminate the Magnitsky Act which imposes sanctions on Russian oligarchs accused of murder and theft. It’s a cause near and dear to Putin’s heart.
Abolishing the Act would give some nasty human rights abusers free rein. The Act imposes sanctions on some bad Russian actors. Neverthless, Hillary wanted the sanctions removed. She made her opinion known at the same time Bill gave the speech in Moscow.
Bill gave the speech to the Russian bank that would be affected by the Magnitsky Act. Bill was then personally thanked by President Putin.
By their own admission, in a leaked Wikileaks email, Hillary’s team killed a Bloomberg article pointing out the fact that Hillary’s stance and Bill’s over-priced speech took place at the same time.
As with all of Hillary’s and Bill’s potential pay-to-play and conflict of interest schemes, it’s hard to draw a straight line but there is a clear pattern. For example, on December 30, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that more than two dozen companies and one foreign government (Abu Dhabi) paid Bill Clinton a combined $8 million in speaking fees while they had matters before the State Department.
The bank executives Bill Clinton addressed were employees of Renaissance’s Russian investment bank and they would have been banned by the Magnitsky Act.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
Snopes claimed the only evidence the author at Fox News presented is the killing of the Bloomberg story. That’s not accurate. The author never said it was evidence and there were other suspicious links pointed out in the article.
For their part, Snopes tried to suggest it was Obama’s reset that led to Hillary’s opposition to the Act.
They didn’t mention that also at the same time, Hillary was involved in selling Russians a U.S. uranium mine and transferring U.S. technology to them. All of that was for the reset also.
If smoke around Trump and his team is important, this should at least be considered.
There is a great deal of smoke around the Clintons and has been for years.
