NY Times Journalist Caught the Clinton Foundation Red-Handed in a Lie About a Meeting Between former President Bill Clinton and Kazatomprom, a Kazakhstan State-Owned Nuclear Holding Company
LIARS: If you actually care about America, you will watch the video below that shows of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Lied and sold out our country to the Russians …
How big was the New York Times story on Bill and Hillary Clinton and the uranium deal, bigger than you think. If Hillary Clinton and the Clinton’s are allowed to get away with this then this country is lost forever. At some point Americans have to actually care that those in power and have the ultimate power like president of the United States actually have an ounce of decency, credibility and ethics. The individual who holds the highest office in the land can’t be a complete and total liar and hide behind a gender card saying what difference does it make. When is enough, enough?
When Hillary Clinton announced that she was going to run for president in 2016, she stated, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” Clinton went on to further say, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” AMERICA, WAKE THE HELL UP … HILLARY CLINTON IS THAT PERSON AT THE TOP THAT THE DECK IS STACKED IN FAVOR OF!!! Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have sold America out so that they could become rich, breaking every law that the so-called people she wants to champion would have been arrested and thrown in jail. America, we are no longer talking about Bill lied about sex with an intern … THESE LIES ARE MUCH, MUCH INSIDIOUS.
Fox News: Millions To Clinton Foundation In Exchange For Russian Uranium Deal
But, as New York Times reporter Jo Becker reported, such a deal would require review by the U.S. government. That’s where Frank Giustra, a Canadian business executive and founder of the company that would become Uranium One, entered the picture.
Giustra reportedly set up a meeting between Kazatomprom officials and Bill Clinton himself — at the former president’s home in Chappaqua, New York.
Giustra has close ties to Bill Clinton and is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. The two even flew to Kazakhstan together when Giustra’s company landed a lucrative deal to secure uranium mines there.
Here’s where the lie comes in.
Becker told Fox News’ Bret Baier that when she first asked a Clinton Foundation spokesman and Giustra about the meeting, they both said no such meeting ever took place. However, when she informed them that the then-head of Kazatomprom not only told her that the meeting had taken place, but also showed her a picture of himself with Clinton at the Chappaqua home proudly displayed in his office, they were forced to admit the meeting occurred.
In 2007, Toshiba “sold a 10 percent stake in U.S. nuclear power plant builder Westinghouse,” Reuters reported.
During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the U.S. State Department, foreign governments and businesses donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paid millions in speaker fees to former President Clinton. Some of those same players then had business or policy issues later land on then-Secretary of State Clinton’s desk.
In addition to concerns about ethics of such practices, Clinton failed to disclose millions of dollars in big foreign donations to her husband’s foundation, which she had previously vowed to do. It was also reported that the Clinton Foundation is redoing five years worth of tax returns after a review by Reuters found several errors.
That’s the gist of the bombshell reports, based on Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Clinton Cash,” that emerged on Thursday.
Mitt Romney Says on Hugh Hewitt Show Regarding Clinton Foundation Uranium Payments … “It Looks Like Bribery”
Mitt Romney says, “It Looks Like Bribery.”
Yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Mitt Romney was asked what his reaction was of the New York Times article report documenting cash flowing from the Russians amid a uranium deal to the Clinton Foundation. Romney, the former 2012 GOP presidential nominee, said that he was stunned and “it looked like bribery”. Romney went on to say that it looks like bribery and a cover up on behalf of Hillary Clinton and had she not wiped out thousands of emails, we might know more.
“You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery.”
“I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.”
“But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”
It is too bad that Mitt Romney did not go after Barack Obama like he is now Hillary during the 2012 presidential election. Had he done so and kept his foot on Obama’s neck following the 1st Presidential debate instead of coating and playing a prevent defense, he probably would have won.
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton & the Real Russian Reset … Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
CAN YOU SAY OBSCENE CONFLICT OF INTEREST …
UNBELIEVABLE, From the New York Times comes the following connect the dots story that looks way to fishy and convenient of an incestuous relationship between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, The Clinton Foundation and the Russians. How in the hell can Hillary Clinton be trusted to be President of the United States? Forget email and server-gate and Benghazi-gate while she was Secretary of State and all the previous scandals that she was a part of, we need to only look at what she did as Secretary of State and the relationships that can be best be described as suspect. As Red State opines, Bill Clinton sold us to the ChiComs; Hillary sold us to the Russians. And this individual wants to be president. America, wake the hell up.
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Please read the entire article at the NY Times as there is too much incredible stuff in it to do in any justice with block quotes. It is time for America and especially Democrats to say enough is enough. Obviously Democrats are not going to vote for a Republican for president, but if you actually pull the lever for Hillary, you would have sold your soul, as there has never been a more corrupt person running for president that had no business doing so. If these kind of stories of scandals, corruption, influence and conspiracy were about any one else, they would have been politically destroyed. Sorry, but so should Hillary.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Not Categorically Denying Clinton Foundation Donors Received Special Treatment From Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
HMM … OBAMA WHITE HOUSE NOT CATEGORICALLY DENYING CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR AND FORMER SEC. OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON QUID PRO DOUGH SPECIAL TREATMENT …
Why would it be difficult for Barack Obama’s White House press secretary Josh Earnest to say categorically that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not provide special treatment for those who were donors of the Clinton Foundation? One would think that would be a straight forward response of, absolutely not. However, not with the most transparent presidency in history. The Obama White House does not seem to have an answer to the accusations made from the recent book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” otherwise known as Quid Pro Dough.
The new book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer, lays out the case that contributions to the foundation influenced State Department policy from 2009 to 2013, during Clinton’s tenure.
ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl asked Earnest Monday, “Can you say categorically that no donors to the Clinton Foundation – nobody paying any honoraria to former President Clinton – received any favorable treatment from this administration or from the State Department?”
Earnest talked at length about the memorandum of understanding Clinton signed when she joined the Obama administration, saying that it went above and beyond ethical guidelines, given her unique circumstances.
“I know there have been a lot of accusations made about this but not a lot of evidence,” Earnest said. “So, the president continues to be extraordinarily proud of the work Secretary Clinton did as secretary of state. For the details of some of those accusations, I’d refer you to Secretary Clinton’s campaign.”
Karl pressed, “Can you assure us absolutely no favorable treatment given to donors of the Clinton Foundation?”
Earnest repeated, “There are lots of accusations. There is no one who is marshaling the evidence for this. I don’t want to be in a position.”
WHAT A JOKE, NO CONTEMPT CHARGES FOR LOIS LERNER … MORE FROM THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION EVER.
This should come as a shock to no one … President Barack Obama said he was going to have the most transparent and trustworthy administration ever. Of course this is much like a 300 pound man wearing a bowling shirt with the nickname “Slim” on it. And now for the latest in the IRS scandal that saw the IRS purposely and intentionally go after Conservatives and Conservative non-profit groups like the Tea Party ahead of the 2012 elections. Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s Department of Justice will not seek criminal charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner over her refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. IMAGINE THAT! The DOJ claims that she did not waive her 5th Amendment privileges when she made a statement of her innocence prior to pleading the 5th because get this … “she made only a general claims of innocence.” SERIOUSLY?
The fix has been in from the outset. We not only have a corrupt government where the fox is guarding the hen house, we have one where the fox also is behind the scandal and in charge of prosecuting any such crimes at the hen house. This country has so lost its way I really am beginning to wonder for the first time in my life whether we will ever be able to get it back.
The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.
Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerner’s refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machen’s office has been reviewing the issue since then.
Machen said the Oversight Committee “followed proper procedures” in telling Lerner that it had “rejected her claim of privilege and gave her an adequate opportunity to answer the Committee’s questions.”
IRS watchdog probing ‘potential criminal activity’ in Lerner email mess.
However, Machen said Justice Department lawyers determined that Lerner “did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by making an opening statement on May 22, 2013, because she made only a general claims of innocence.”
Machen added: “Given that assessment, we have further concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States Attorney to present the matter to the grand jury for action where, as here, the Constitution prevents the witness from being prosecuted for contempt.”
Judge Jeanine Pirro: We Need a Woman President, But Not this Woman … Does Hillary Clinton Have The Integrity To Be President?
THE ANSWER IS NO …
Judge Jeanine Pirro slammed Hillary Clinton in her opening monologue on ‘Justice with Judge Jeanine’ stating, “As much as I want a woman president … But not this woman.” Judge Jeanine Pirro ripped Hillary Clinton for not having the integrity to be president of the United States. Hillary Clinton does not have what it takes to protect America and our Constitution, she is only concerned with covering her behind and protecting herself. The rules have never applied to Hillary. How could anyone think that she is what America needs after 8 years of Obama?
“As much as I want a woman president, the latest news of deleting emails and keeping communications with her highest level staff outside of government servers, ignoring it until it became clear it wasn’t going away, tells me that Hillary Clinton is not about transparency and is not about integrity,” Judge Jeanine stated.
My personal opinion is, if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2016, this country is finished. It is bad enough that presidents do unethical things and lie while in office. But to knowingly elect Hillary Clinton, an individual who has a past of lies, unethical behavior and hiding things from the American people would mean this country does not care anyone. It would mean, as long as you are the first of anything, like Barack Obama being the first black president or Hillary, the first female president, everything else that makes up someone being an ethical and qualified candidate does not matter. Or as Hillary would say about her past and lack of qualifications … what different does it make.
Alright, so she used her private email and she communicated with her top level staff through their private emails. Who cares? Will this impact your decision on whether to vote for Hillary Clinton for president?
Of course not. You won’t even remember this kerfuffle next year. But the question is much deeper than that. The question becomes: does Hillary Clinton have the integrity to be the President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world? Does Hillary Clinton have the instincts to protect us, someone other than herself?
And as much as I want a woman president, the latest news of deleting emails and keeping communications with her highest level staff outside of government servers, ignoring it until it became clear it wasn’t going away, tells me that Hillary Clinton is not about transparency and is not about integrity, that she does whatever she wants regardless of the rules.
And nobody knows scandal or loopholes better than this woman who has danced with special prosecutors, federal investigators and subpoenas for most of her professional career. It’s simply part of her history.
Now Congressman Trey Gowdy, head of the Benghazi Committee, wants to give her the benefit of the doubt, saying but “it wouldn’t be reasonable for her to be on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy and there are no emails from the trip.”
And I’m going to shock you tonight, in spite of my law enforcement background, to me this email investigation is almost irrelevant.
Hillary Clinton knows exactly what she’s doing. What matters to her is making history by becoming the first woman president. The rules simply don’t apply to her.
AMERICANS NAME GOVERNMENT THE #1 PROBLEM FACING THE UNITED STATES …
Americans are fed up with the increasing and oppressive government. In a recent Gallup poll, Americans named the government as the biggest problem facing the United States. For the past 4 months, the government has been named the biggest problem facing “We the People”. They are correct. Even with such issues as terrorism, healthcare, race relations and immigration are extremely important problems facing Americans, the government, the economy and unemployment have been at the top of the list for the past year. In the end, it is our lawless government that refuses to follow the US Constitution, our government that fails to adequately deal with border security, our government that makes the Middle East worse, our government that continually regulates us in a way that our Founding Fathers never intended and our government that spies on us and treats law-abiding, legal US citizens as a greater threat than terrorists.
Americans have grown weary of a government that could care less about the people and only about their power. Every day we are witness to a Democrat president who shreds the Constitution and a gutless Republican Congress who is too cowardice to defend it.
The government is America’s most important problem, according to a new poll.
In a Gallup poll released Thursday, 18 percent of Americans named government as the biggest problem facing the U.S.
The economy trailed closely behind as an important problem with 11 percent, followed by “unemployment/jobs” at 10 percent.
The poll shows a slight increase in those who are dissatisfied with government. In February, 17 percent answered that the government is the most important problem. Americans also seem to be optimistic about the economy. Last month, 16 percent of Americans said that the economy was the most important problem — nearly tying with government. That figure is now down 5 percentage points.
Americans’ confidence in all three branches of government is at or near record lows, according to a major survey that has measured attitudes on the subject for 40 years.
The 2014 General Social Survey finds only 23 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court, 11 percent in the executive branch and 5 percent in Congress. By contrast, half have a great deal of confidence in the military.
As Ronald Reagen profoundly stated so many years ago, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”
Ronald Reagan also said so many years ago, “We are a nation that has a government. Our government has no power except for that granted by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Says Dems Screwed Up Passing Obamacare … “Democrats Blew the Opportunity the American People Gave Them” in 2008 and “Put All of Our Focus on the Wrong Problem”
ISN’T THIS INTERESTING, DEMOCRAT CHUCKY SCHUMER SAYS THAT DEMOCRATS SCREWED UP PASSING OBAMACARE …
Speaking Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer had an epiphany and stated that “Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them” after the 2008 election. Schumer went on to say that, “We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem, health care reform.” Gee, ya think? Sen. Schumer was one of the 60 Democrat senators who passed Obamacare, with not one GOP vote, and forced the unpopular law down the throats of Americans. Now suddenly because as we predicted back then, it would be their undoing, Schumer has misgivings that Democrats focused on it first and did not focus on what Americans were dealing with on a day to day basis, a poor economy and unemployment. Schumer told those in attendance “that considering 85% of all Americans got their health care from either the government, Medicare, Medicaid, or their employer … we would still only be talking about only 5% of the electorate.” Wasn’t that the same argument that those opposed to Obamacare were making in 2009? Why blow up the healthcare system in the United States for only 5% of the people? This is a kin to demolishing a house because the back porch needs repair. Not only did Democrats not listen to the people, the law they forced upon them was nothing more than a lie.
Democrats made a strategic mistake by passing the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, said Tuesday.
Schumer says Democrats “blew the opportunity the American people gave them” in the 2008 elections, a Democratic landslide, by focusing on healthcare reform instead of legislation to boost the middle class.
But why is Sen. Schumer talking about the Democrats disastrous decision to pass Obamacare now, is it because they have buyer’s remorse and care about the American people? Not at all, it is because they have taken a political shellacking in 2010 and 2014 and now find themselves in the minority in the House and the Senate. It all has to do with power, not the people. Honestly, who in their right mind thought that an unpopular bill that adversely affected so many people to only benefit a few would not have ramifications? If Democrats could not see that, then they deserve what they got.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus. But unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform. Now the plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed, but it was not the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not changes in health care.
This makes sense, considering 85% of all Americans got their health care from either the government, Medicare, Medicaid, or their employer. And if health care costs were going up, it really did not affect them. The Affordable Care Act was aimed at the 36 million Americans who were not covered. It has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote. In 2010 only about 40% of those registered voting. So even if the uninsured kept with the rate, which they likely did not, we would still only be talking about only 5% of the electorate.
To aim a huge change in mandate at such a small percentage of the electorate made no political sense. So when Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought the Democrats are not paying enough attention to me. Again, our health care system was riddled with unfairness and inefficiency. It was a problem desperately in need of fixing. The changes that were made are and will continue to be positive changes, but we would have been better able to address it if Democrats had first proposed and passed bold programs aimed at a broader swath of the middle class.
Had we started more broadly, the middle class would have been more receptive to the idea that President Obama wanted to help them. The initial faith they placed in him would have been rewarded. They would have held a more pro-government view and would have given him the permission structure to build a more pro-government coalition. Then Democrats would have been in a better position to tackle our nation’s healthcare crisis.
Healthcare, it wasn’t at the top of the agenda for middle class people …
“We should have done it, we just should not have done it first”. People were hurting and said, what about me, I am losing my job. It’s not health care that is bothering me.”
EXIT QUESTION: So why is Sen. Charles Schumer making these comments about Obamacare? Maybe because Schumer does not want to be the next on the list of 29 Democrat Senators who are no longer in the US Senate who voted for Obamacare.
GRUBERGATE:The Liar in Chief President Obama Says Regarding Gruber’s Remarks, “No, We Did Not Mislead to Get Obamacare Passed”
GRUBERGATE … THE GREAT OBAMACARE HOAX, LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.
Yesterday in Brisbain, Australia Barack Obama finally was asked the question, did you misled the American people with regards to Obamacare. Wouldn’t it have been amazing id he said, YES, you caught me. But, in typical Obama fashion, he denied the allegation and then went off on a tangent explaining away the accusation and never really providing any valid facts to support his denial. All you have done in your six years in office is mislead the American people. President Obama, you have already lied about you can keep your insurance plan and doctor, if you like them … why wouldn’t we think you lied about everything else to pass Obamacare?
Ed Henry – Fox News: At you Burma town hall a couple of days ago you tried to inspire young leaders by saying governments need to be held accountable and be responsive to the people. I wonder how you square that with your former adviser Jonathan Gruber claiming that you were not transparent about the health law, because in his words, ‘the American people, the voters, were stupid’ (VIDEO). Did you mislead Americans about the taxes, about keeping your plan, to get the bill passed?
Barack Obama: No. I did not. I just heard about this. I get well briefed before I come out here. The fact that some adviser, who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion, that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, is no reflection of the process that was run. We had a year long debate Ed. Go back and look at your stories. The one thing we cannot say is that we did not have a lengthy about health care in the United States of America. Or that it was not adequately covered. I would just advise every press outlet here to go back and pull up every clip, every story, and I think it is fair to say that there was not a provision in the health care law that was not extensively debated and fully transparent.
First, Obama just heard about this? You mean he can’t remember one of the many meetings with Jonathan Gruber in the White House? Good grief, Obama is using that tired response of he just learned about the issue from the news? Where have we heard that before, maybe in the following VIDEO.
Second, Just curious, does it make an adviser less credible if he did not work directly on Obama’s staff? There are these people called consultants Barack. Who would actually believe that the architect of Obamacare, also the architect of Romneycare, would actually work directly for the President? This sounds an awful lot like the Cheers episode when Cliff was on Jeopardy answering the final Jeopardy question … “who are three people who have never been in my kitchen.”
Third, read the following quote from Obama, “The fact that some adviser, who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion, that I completely disagree with, in terms of the voters, …” All Obama disagrees with is Gruber’s remark that the American voters are stupid. Obama is not saying that he disagrees with the rest of the misleading comments.
Fourth, Barack Obama claimed that the health care debate was extensive, adequately covered and transparent. Hmm really? So why did Nancy Pelosi famously say, “We Have to Pass Our Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It.”
Fifth, President Obama, do you really want everyone going back and taking a look at every clip and news account? Look what happened so far by those on the right and bloggers.
Sixth, fully transparent? The Obamacare you can keep your plan if you like it was already awarded the 2013 Politifact lie of the Year. It would appear you are looking to win the award two years in a row. As Jonathan Gruber said, “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
Seventh, no asked the question whether Obamacare was extensively debated. However, what good is a debate when the premise is based on a lie that is being discussed?
On a completely different lie, check out the 2:20 mark of the Obama VIDEO where miraculously Obama comes up with all of these stats for the Healthcare.gov web site now that it is not crashing all the time. Remember last year when Obama minions were asked for the same type of data and we were told they did not have access to it.
Yeah Mr. President, Obamacare is working … that is why the majority of Americans have not even been affected by it because you delayed it.
Posted November 17, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Abuse of Power, Barack Obama, Campaigner in Chief, Chicago-Style Politics, collusion, Community Agitator, Corruption, Cover-Up, cronyism, Democrats, Epic Fail, Ethics, Fraud, Government, Healthcare, Healthcare.gov, Hoax, Liberals, Misleader, Obamacare, Obamanation, Progressives, Saul Alinsky, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, Transparency, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | 2 comments
Mexican Mayor Jose Luis Abarca and his Wife Maria de los Angeles Pineda Arrested in Case of Missing 43 Students
Iguala Mayor Jose Luis Abarca and his wife, Maria de los Angeles Pineda were arrested Tuesday morning at a house they had rented in Mexico City’s Iztapalapa neighborhood. The couple is believed to have ordered an attack that killed six people and left 43 students missing in September. The question still remains following the arrest, where are the 43 students who haven’t been seen being taken away by officers after the deadly attack by police in Iguala on September 26?
Federal police seized Jose Luis Abarca and his wife, Maria de los Angeles Pineda, in a raid before dawn in Iztapalapa, a working-class neighborhood of the capital. It was a steep fall from their reign of wealth and power as the mayor and first lady of Iguala, a town in southern Guerrero state where the students from a teachers’ college went missing Sept. 26, allegedly at the hands of police and a drug cartel.
A Mexican mayor characterized as a “probable mastermind” in the mass abduction of 43 students has been taken into custody as authorities have tracked down a top target who eluded them for weeks — even if they still haven’t managed to locate the missing.
Iguala Mayor Jose Luis Abarca and his wife, Maria de los Angeles Pineda — dubbed “the imperial couple” by local media for how they presided over their southern Mexican city — were detained early Tuesday morning at a house they had rented in Mexico City’s Iztapalapa neighborhood. They did not resist arrest, authorities said.
The couple had been staying in a house that appeared to be abandoned, and investigators first got suspicious when they saw a woman repeatedly entering and leaving the building, Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam told reporters. That woman, Noemí Berumen Rodríguez, was arrested alongside the mayor and his wife. Authorities accused her of concealing the couple.
Their capture, which Mexican Federal Police spokesman Jose Ramon Salinas reported on his Twitter account, signals a major milestone in the high-profile case.