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.
Clinton Foundation To Refile Tax Returns … For 3 Years in a Row the Clinton Foundation Reported to the IRS It Received ZERO Funds From Foreign & U.S. Governments
Hmm, the IRS was too busy going after and attacking Conservative non-profits and the Tea Party as they missed The Clinton Foundation filings … Imagine that.
As reported by Reuters, The Clinton Foundation will have to refile at lest 5 years of tax returns to the IRS after a Reuters review found errors in how the Foundation reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors. As referenced at Breitbart, the errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. But what would you expect from Hillary Clinton, an individual who thinks she is above the law, conducted State Department business with her own personal email and stored on her own private server, and then scrubbed the server hard drives clean.
Remember, Ron Fournier said weeks back to keep your eye on the Clinton Foundation, that was the bigger controversy.
Scouts honor, I am not a liar
Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.
The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims “absurd conspiracy theories.”
The charities’ errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.
The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.
The unsettled numbers on the tax returns are not evidence of wrongdoing but tend to undermine the 990s role as a form of public accountability, experts in charity law and transparency advocates interview told Reuters.
“If those numbers keep changing – well, actually, we spent this on this, not that on that – it really defeats the purpose,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group.
For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.
18 Apocalyptic Predictions Made During the Time of the First Earth Day in 1970 That Were Just Flat Out Wrong
WOW, COULD THE 1970′S GLOBAL ALARMISTS BEEN MORE WRONG?
Everyone who was old enough during the 1970′s remembers the constant predictions that there would be an ice age. There was gloom and doom of apocalyptic type catastrophes and that were were headed into an Ice Age. It is those same disingenuous people who now predict that man made global warming will be the end of times. Hey folks, can you people settle on your scientific lies? From the American Enterprise Institute comes the following 18 predictions made in the 1970′s around the time of the first Earth Day. Take a good look and see just how wrong these alarmists have been already. Now we are supposed to give their present day predictions any credence?
To watch these VIDEOS is just amazing. Interestingly enough, the media called Earth Day a failure.
EARTH DAY … A QUESTION OF SURVIVAL (Walter Cronkite)
How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started.
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” [Um, wouldn't this mean that the world would have ended between 1985 and 2000? If my calendar serves me correctly, isn't it 2015? As Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 would say, "missed it by that much".]
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. [Hmm, see prediction 1.]
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” [The 1970's editorial folks might want to visit Beijing, China.]
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” [Wow, some one really got this one wrong.]
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By… some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” [Paul Ehrlich was on a stuck on stupid role in the 1970's with his predictions.]
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” [Dude, the Great Die Off, really? The only thing that died between 1980 and 1989 was Paul Ehrlich's reputation and credibility.]
Earth Day 1970 Part 6: Boston … Boston Police break up protest at Logan Airport (CBS News with Walter Cronkite)
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. [Good grief, even though his predictions were toal BS, this guy is still spouting his bovine scatology.]
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” [Wrong again, what was this fascination with famine? Or was it wishful thinking?]
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” [OMG, ROTFLMAO]
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” [Watt also predicted the world would run out of oil by the year 2000 and that humans would emit so much nitrogen light would actually be filtered out of the atmosphere. Where is my head shaking emoticon?]
Earth Day 1970 Part 11: White House Reaction (CBS News with Walter Cronkite) – What’s comical is that Pres. Nixon is the one who created the EPA
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. [These folks spread this BS and made a living out of doing so. UNREAL.]
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. [Oh no, its Paul Ehrlich again with another ridiculous claim of gloom and doom. This dude must have been a laugh-riot to be around]
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. [Damn, I hope this is not the case. Note to Ehrlich, the life expectancy in the United States as of 2012 is 78.74 years.]
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” [Oh no, I better go fill up the Chevy. Oh wait, its 2015. My prediction, by the year 2000 Ecologist Kenneth Watt had zero street cred.]
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. [I guess its good for him that he died in 1986 and wasn't around to see his bone-head wrong prediction.]
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” [His prediction should have been that 75-80 percent of the 1970 Earth Day predictions were extinct.]
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” [Paul, Paul, Paul ... sometimes silence is golden, especially with your predictions].
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” [What would Al Gore say ... Al said that the Earth had a fever, not the chills. From an Ice Age to Global warming and we experienced neither.]
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.”
- Her campaign plans to raise and spend an unbelievable $2.5 billion!
Daily Commentary – Friday, April 17, 2015 Download
Pilot Doug Hughes Explains His Mission to Draw Attention to Campaign Finance Reform Before Landing at the Capitol with his Gyropcopter … Did He Just Provide a Blueprint for Terrorists?
THANKS DOUG, TERRORISTS NOW HAVE A NEW METHOD TO ATTACK WASHINGTON, DC …
Watch the VIDEO below of 61 year old Doug Hughes, a mail man, from Florida explains what his planned mission was and that he had planned it well in advance. Doug says that no sane man would do what he was going to do, ya think? He stated he carefully planned this stunt, and did not want to get hurt. Doug Hughes states that “terrorists don’t announce their fights before they take off. Terrorists don’t broadcast their flight path. Terrorists don’t invite an escort to go along with them.” Hmm, thanks to Dough Hughes and the idiotic reaction of the Capital police and Secret Service, I bet they do now.
Dough Hughes did this stunt in order to draw attention to campaign finance reform and most likely probably brought more attention to would-be terrorists and lone-wolfs in how to fly in a no-fly zone without getting blown out of the sky. Hughes says his intent was to deliver 535 letters strapped to the landing gear to give to members of Congress.
Doug Hughes’ close friend and co-worker, Mike Shanahan, said today that the Ruskin mailman is not a terrorist and did not mean any harm with his protest.
And just hours before Hughes landed in Washington, Hughes’ friend said he called a Secret Service agent to notify him of the possibility of the gyrocopter flight.
“He’s not a suicide bomber, he’s a patriot,” said Shanahan, 65, of Apollo Beach. The whole stunt centers around Hughes’ effort to change campaign finance laws, “or the lack thereof,” according to Shanahan.
About a year ago, Shanahan said, Hughes told him of the idea to deliver letters to legislators by gyrocopter. Not long after, they were both questioned by a Secret Service official in Florida, he said. Wednesday morning, Shanahan said, Hughes called his friend and said he was in Washington, ready to take off.
Just curious, didn’t I see this same flying contraption in the 1986 movie, Howard the Duck?
UPDATE I: AP Captures VIDEO of Doug Hughes buzzing the Capital area.
How in the hell was this allowed to happen and according to reports, authorities were warned in advance that this would happen and still allowed it to occur. HUH? So it was okay, because Hughes was a LEFT-WING nut-job? ABC7 reports that the small single-man gyrocopter that flew through restricted airspace around the National Mall was undetected by NORAD.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, the top minority member on the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN he had “deep concern” about Wednesday’s incident and the fact that the Secret Service knew about the pilot.
“Obviously we should have kept a little closer tabs on him, especially within the prohibited airspace,” Thompson said.
“It shows that we still have some areas that are vulnerable and while we can have prohibited airspace it shows that certain kinds of flight patterns are still problematic, and a really bad guy could have caused significant harm if had been armed with explosives or things like that,” he said.
UPDATE II: Doug Hughes wrote on his website, The Democracy Club, As I have informed the authorities, I have no violent inclinations or intent.”
Who thinks that terrorists hell-bent on attacking the United States would say the same thing.
Hillary Clinton Was Asked About Use of Private Email 2 Years Ago in 12/13/12 Letter from Congressional Investigators
THERE IS NO WAY THIS WOMAN SHOULD EVER BE CONSIDERED TO BE PRESIDENT WITH A TRACK RECORD LIKE THIS …
As reported by The New York Times, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton never responded to the letter and purposely tried to hide the fact that she was in fact using a private email account. The question was asked to Mrs. Clinton in a December 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Conveniently she never responded. Maybe she shredded that too. When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies. UNREAL.
What difference Does it Make that I Mislead congress and the American People …
Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.
But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.
The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email.
“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”
How can anyone, whether they be Hillary Clinton or not, be even considered as a viable candidate to run for president when they have a track record of purposely and willfully lying to Congress and trying to evade and stonewall an investigation? As we all know now, Hillary Clinton exclusively used a (many) private email accounts while she was secretary of state, also stored them on her own private email server and has since reportedly scrubbed the hard drive. Sorry, this should 100% disqualify one from running for president.
Liberal Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro to Give Tax Break for Voluntarily Turning in High-Powered Assault Rifles
What else would you expect from an idiot liberal Democrat … Libs continue their assault on the Second Amendment.
Liberal Connecticut Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro has introduced legislation that would pay gun owners with tax breaks for voluntarily turning in their assault rifles. What’s this, another cash for clunkers program? I can see it now, criminals handing over their old and out-dated assault rifles, getting tax payer dollars and going out and buying new and better assault weapons. Just another non-thought out, knew-jerk reaction by liberals to a terrible crime. DeLauro originally introduced the bill in 2013 following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT in December 2012. The legislation failed, but it looks like she is bringing it back again. However, this bill would most likely just fund criminals with better weapons on the tax payer’s dime. Brilliant.
Rosa Delaura made the following comment, spoken like a typical liberal, who has never used a gun and has no respect for the Second Amendment, “Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”
Gun owners would receive tax breaks for voluntarily turning in high-powered assault rifles under new legislation proposed Monday.
The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments.
“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”
Though DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms.
The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.
Insatpundit has a better idea, pay welfare recipients $2000 to be sterilized instead and word the legislation identically like this cash for guns bill.
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.”
Even Democrats who go against the Obama agenda appear to be on Barack’s enemies list …
New Jersey US Senator Robert Menendez was indicted today with on corruption charges in that he used his office to help advance the business interests of a longtime friend and political supporter in exchange for luxury gifts, vacations and campaign donations.? In total, Menendez faces a 14-count indictment consisting of 1 count of conspiracy, 1 count of violating the travel act, 7 counts of bribery, 3 counts of honest services fraud, and 1 count of making false statements. Menendez has denied any wrongdoing and vows to fight the charges, stating that he will be vindicated. While he will not leave office, Menendez will step aside from his position as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee as he fights the charges.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on federal corruption charges Wednesday, accused of using the influence of his office to advance the business interests of a longtime friend and political supporter in exchange for luxury gifts, lavish vacations and more than $750,000 in campaign donations.?
Federal prosecutors laid out the charges in a 14-count indictment charging Menendez with using his office to help Salomon Melgen, a Florida-based eye doctor with whom Menendez had maintained a long personal and political friendship. Menendez intervened on Melgen’s behalf in at least two disputes, one with federal regulators over Medicare charges and the other involving a bid by Melgen to secure a port security contract in the Dominican Republic, according to the indictment.
Prosecutors say that over a seven-year period, Menendez relied on Melgen for free private jets to weekend getaways at resorts in Florida, the Dominican Republic and Paris.
Menendez has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He was defiant Wednesday night before a boisterous crowd of supporters, saying that Melgen’s gifts were a result of friendship dating to the early 1990s and not in exchange for political favors.
Just curious, how much of the DOJ’s investigation and indictments against Menendez have to do with political wrongdoing and how much has to do with the fact that he has been a political thorn in Obama’s side? The Democrat Senator has been extremely vocal against Obama’s policy in Cuba and with Iran. Obama probably did not appreciate it when Mendeez said in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in January 2015, “the More I hear from the Obama administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.” As much as I am not a big fan of Robert Menendez, his words have proved to be profound as we witness Obama’s disastrous nuclear plan with Iran.