The Dog that Didn’t Bark

I am ever more convinced that Obama is smarter – or at a minimum vastly more self-aware – than onetime rival, then subordinate, then hoped-for-successor Hillary Clinton.

I know, I know, they’re both supposed to be really smart – the media has been telling us so for years. But now, as to Obama, I can sort of see it. He, you see, has been dead silent on the supposed Trump-colluded-with-Russia story all along.

When I first commented on Obama’s fascinating silence on that score here back in April, I was making the perfectly logical inference that the reason for the former president’s reticence was that he knew that such claims had no substance, and so, didn’t want to tarnish his own legacy by associating himself with the media frenzy over baseless calumnies. As far as it goes, that inference still seems correct, but it covers only a small part of the facts that are now emerging.

To begin, Obama already knew about Hillary’s deep conflicts of interest when as Secretary of State she supported the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to Russia while the Clinton Foundation was collecting over $100 million in contributions from the (Russian) board members of Rosatom (the acquiring company) and while good ole Bill was being paid $500,000 for giving a speech in Moscow*. Obama also apparently knew, but didn’t tell Congress, which had to approve the sale, that the FBI was actively investigating Russian efforts to infiltrate Hillary’s inner circle at the time of the purchase (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356630-fbi-watched-then-acted-as-russian-spy-moved-closer-to-hillary).

Even more to the point, Obama almost certainly knew – or at least suspected – that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had had been responsible for ginning up the phony “Trump dossier” that had, so it seems (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-russia-bombshells-1509059214), been used to convince a FISA judge to allow the Obama Administration and innumerable Clinton allies to spy on the Trump camp.

Think about that for a moment: the Democrats were spending millions to dig up absurd, unprovable allegations ultimately sourced from the Kremlin and using them – through their innumerable friends in the media – to discredit candidate-then-President-elect, Trump, while loudly proclaiming – with no evidence other than the dossier that they had funded – that it had been Trump who had colluded with the Russians.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration was apparently using the Russian-sourced allegations as justification for spying on their political rivals and profligately “unmasking” the targets so that those who illegally leaked the fact of the investigations could not be identified (because after the unmasking too many would be in the know to pinpoint the culprits). And now Samantha Power claims that she did not sign off on most of the unmasking requests attributed to her, meaning that we can’t even know who opened the floodgates. Curiouser and curiouser.

If there was collusion here – to say nothing of bribery on a grand scale, and the illegal and baldly political weaponization of our surveillance laws – wasn’t it perpetrated by the Obama/Clinton clique?

I have no doubt that Hillary and Obama will deny direct involvement in the “Trump dossier”, just as Hillary will deny that there was any connection at all between the money given to the Clinton Foundation or the speech fee paid to Bill and the sale of American uranium to Rosatom. Denying is what they do best.

But do you think that Obama, the DNC and the Clinton campaign would allow their lawyer at Perkins Coie to spend $10m+ without their knowledge? I don’t. And if there was no connection between the gifts (or Bill’s speaking fee) and the approval of the uranium sale, why weren’t they repeated after the sale had been approved? Did the Clinton Foundation, and ole Bill himself, suddenly lose their appeal?

At least Obama is smart enough to lie low when the facts are ugly.

 

M.H. Johnston

*As to Bill’s “speaking fee” does anybody believe that the tens of millions that the Clintons have been paid for such talks has anything to do with the substance of the words of wisdom they offered at such events? Can anybody recall them having said anything memorable in those speeches? No. The speech fees were payoffs – not in the old-fashioned sense of simple quid pro quos, but in the sense of being a way of buying your way into membership in Club Clinton, which demonstrably could be expected to pay dividends over time. In the case of Rosatom, arguably, in a very brief time indeed.

 

3 comments to The Dog that Didn’t Bark

  • Dennis Paine  says:

    Excellent analysis, and very perceptive! Thank you!!

  • bob kelly  says:

    funny how all the donations to the clinton foundation dried up after her loss . that should be enough to lock em up

  • Anonymous  says:

    Did Bill even really give a speech?

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>