Washington and the national media are all about double standards. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the sort of Russian “ties” used to condemn Republicans as possible agents of Moscow are dismissed as irrelevant when Democrats are revealed to have deeper, stronger and far more remunerative connections to Russian banks, oligarchs and institutions than any Republican currently being banished to the outer darkness by Democratic “progressives.”
Support Independent Media!
We were told that there was no reason to be suspicious because Mrs. Clinton was only one of several Obama administration officials who had to give permission for the deal; she didn’t personally attend the crucial meeting, but instead sent one of her lower-level State Department officials and that, besides, the timing was wrong. Many of the contributions came in before an actual request for approval was tendered and we all therefore had to assume the contributions were made to promote the wonderful work of the Clinton Foundation rather than to buy or even seek favorable consideration from the woman who was then in a position to torpedo the company’s plans.
Later, when emails released by WikiLeaks suggested that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, had received tens of thousands of shares of stock while sitting on the board of a company heavily dependent on Russian financing and didn’t list all this on his disclosure forms when he went into the Obama White House, we were assured by one and all that he had divested himself of any interest in the Russian-financed firm by leaving its board and turning his shares over to his “adult children” in an arm’s-length transaction.