Politics & Policy

Russian Collusion, Clinton $tyle

(Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)
Mueller should probe the Clintons’ $152 million–plus in payoffs

Strolling one afternoon near Manhattan’s Sixth Avenue and West 34th Street, I spotted two tourists with their faces nestled in a map. They looked hopelessly lost.

“Can I help you?” I asked.

Thoroughly flummoxed, they pleaded, “Where’s the Empire State Building?”

I pointed straight up, one block east, and said: “It’s right there!”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team resemble those hapless travelers. They scour their visitors’ guide in vain for any trace of Team Trump’s alleged Russian collusion. Meanwhile, just steps away, the Clintons’ Russian-collusion skyscraper soars into the clouds.

In fact, former Trump-campaign aide Sam Nunberg said that Team Mueller asked him if he had heard anyone in Trump Tower speak Russian. Apparently, nyet.

Although they started sniffing around in July 2016, neither the FBI’s bloodhounds nor those of Mueller or Congress have detected a whiff of evidence that ties Trump to Russian collusion. Indeed, the House Intelligence Committee interviewed 70 witnesses and reviewed 300,000 documents before wrapping up its Russiagate inquiry last Thursday. As its final report states, “The Committee found no evidence that meetings between Trump associates — including Jeff Sessions — and official representatives of the Russian government — including [Moscow’s] Ambassador Kislyak — reflected collusion, coordination, or conspiracy with the Russian government.”

In contrast, Team Mueller studiously ignores something more conspicuous than the iridescent onion domes atop Red Square’s St. Basil’s Cathedral: Private interests that closed deals with Vladimir Putin and his agents — thanks to then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s public favors — gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million.

While this institution performed some charitable work, it also was the Clintons’ de facto slush fund. It operated a veritable full-employment program for the courtiers in Hillary’s “government in waiting” during the Obama years and financed much of the Clintons’ global travels. Donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in essence, gift-wrapped presents for the Clintons.

Hillary’s March 2009 button-pushing “Russian reset” ceremony with Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, triggered this particular bonanza. Hillary captured its essence in March 2010 when she told former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner on First Channel TV: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”

The Clintons also strengthened their coffers. Three key transactions compose their pro-Kremlin graft.

• “The Ex-Im Bank would welcome an application for financing from Rosavia to support its purchase of Boeing aircraft,” Hillary said in Moscow on October 13, 2009. Three days later, according to the Washington Post, “Boeing formally submitted its bid for the Russian deal.” Kremlin-owned Rostekhnologii decided on June 1, 2010, to buy up to 50 Boeing 737s for Aeroflot, Russia’s national airline. Price: $3.7 billion.

That August 17, Boeing gave the Clinton Foundation $900,000 to “help support the reconstruction of Haiti’s public-education system” after a severe earthquake the previous January.

• Hillary pushed Skolkovo, “a high-tech corridor in Russia modeled after our own Silicon Valley,” as she explained in Moscow in October 2009. Her State Department colleagues encouraged 22 top American venture capitalists to tour Skolkovo in May 2010.

State convinced Cisco, Google, and Intel, among others, to open shop in Skolkovo. By 2012, 28 “Key Partners” from the U.S., Europe, and Russia supported this project.

But the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program warned in 2013: “Skolkovo is arguably an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.” Lucia Ziobro, a top FBI agent in Boston, explained in 2014: “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”

Never mind this threat to U.S. national security. The Clintons got paid. An August 2016 Government Accountability Institute study titled From Russia with Money reported that 17 of Skolkovo’s “Key Partners” plied Bill with speaking fees or gave the Clinton Foundation between $6.5 million and $23.5 million. (Some such donations, unfortunately, were reported in ranges, not precise sums.)

Despite top Republican lawmakers’ grave reservations, CFIUS approved Rosatom’s offer and handed the Kremlin one fifth of U.S. uranium supplies.

• Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation, Rosatom, announced on June 8, 2010, a $1.3 billion bid for a majority stake in Canada’s Uranium One. Its assets included 20 percent of American reserves of the main ingredient in atomic bombs. Hillary was one of nine federal-agency chiefs on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which evaluated this strategically sensitive proposal. As America’s chief diplomat, Hillary could have sunk it. She didn’t. Despite top Republican lawmakers’ grave reservations, CFIUS approved Rosatom’s offer and handed the Kremlin one fifth of U.S. uranium supplies.

Before, during, and after CFIUS’s review, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer calculates, “shareholders involved in this transaction had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives.”

All told, the companies and investors in these Russia-strengthening deals gave the Clinton Foundation between $152 million and $173 million. If Robert Mueller seeks Russian collusion, it’s right there.

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor of National Review Online.

Most Popular

Elections

Put Up or Shut Up on These Accusations, Hillary

Look, one 2016 candidate being prone to wild and baseless accusations is enough. Appearing on Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, Hillary Clinton suggested that 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a “Russian asset,” that Republicans and Russians were promoting the Green Party, and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Honest

If you want to run for office, political consultants will hammer away at one point: Tell stories. People respond to stories. We’ve been a story-telling species since our fur-clad ancestors gathered around campfires. Don’t cite statistics. No one can remember statistics. Make it human. Make it relatable. ... Read More
National Review

Farewell

Today is my last day at National Review. It's an incredibly bittersweet moment. While I've only worked full-time since May, 2015, I've contributed posts and pieces for over fifteen years. NR was the first national platform to publish my work, and now -- thousands of posts and more than a million words later -- I ... Read More
Culture

Feminists Have Turned on Pornography

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the feminist movement has sought to condemn traditional sexual ethics as repressive, misogynistic, and intolerant. As the 2010s come to a close, it might be fair to say that mainstream culture has reached the logical endpoint of this philosophy. Whereas older Americans ... Read More
Economy & Business

Andrew Yang, Snake Oil Salesman

Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur and gadfly, has definitely cleared the bar for a successful cause candidate. Not only has he exceeded expectations for his polling and fundraising, not only has he developed a cult following, not only has he got people talking about his signature idea, the universal basic ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Defense That Doesn’t Work

If we’ve learned anything from the last couple of weeks, it’s that the “perfect phone call” defense of Trump and Ukraine doesn’t work. As Andy and I discussed on his podcast this week, the “perfect” defense allows the Democrats to score easy points by establishing that people in the administration ... Read More
Elections

Democrats Think They Can Win without You

A  few days ago, Ericka Anderson, an old friend of National Review, popped up in the pages of the New York Times lamenting that “the Democratic presidential field neglects abundant pools of potential Democrat converts, leaving persuadable audiences — like independents and Trump-averse, anti-abortion ... Read More
PC Culture

Defiant Dave Chappelle

When Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special Sticks & Stones came out in August, the overwhelming response from critics was that it was offensive, unacceptable garbage. Inkoo Kang of Slate declared that Chappelle’s “jokes make you wince.” Garrett Martin, in the online magazine Paste, maintained that the ... Read More