- Not in the money sense — but in the journalistic malpractice sense
- Compared to Clinton, the Russians skinned Flynn
- Clinton got Flynn’s take for just eight minutes of speechifying
- The full megillah on the corruption of liberal media and our security agencies in the matter of Trump and Russia
Does the Politico and the Democrats really want to make a big deal out of payments to Michael Flynn by Russian companies for speeches!?
If one must ask why this kind of reporting from Politico sounds more like the material for a comedy sketch, one hasn’t been paying attention to the various antics, over decades, of Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton and her has-been husband. Their concentration on relatively trivial, matter of course, connections in order to impune Trump is astounding
More Flynn omissions as White House discloses Russia Today payment (excerpt)
The ousted national security adviser itemizes payments, revealing at least $5,000 from Kremlin-funded media network. . . .
Earlier this month, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking member Elijah Cummings also released documents showing Flynn made nearly $68,000 in fees and expenses from Russian-related organizations, including more than $45,000 from RT tied to a December 2015 trip to Moscow where he sat near Russian President Vladimir Putin during the network’s 10thanniversary party.
Flynn also was paid $11,250 each for the Kaspersky and Volga-Dnepr speeches that were made in Washington, according to the Washington Post.
Capitol Hill and Justice Department investigators have signaled interest in interviewing Flynn as they probe allegations of ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Earlier this week, Flynn, through his attorney, offered to deliver that testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution.
On Twitter Friday, Trump wrote that he supported his former national security adviser’s immunity request “in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!”
Now consider this April 23, 2015 article in the New York Times.*
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (excerpt)
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.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show. . . .
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
So there you have it, Flynn gets $68,000 in the course of his business of lobbying, vetted by US security agencies by the way, and Bill Clinton scores a half mil for a ONE HOUR speech. The compensation comparative works out to Clinton getting over seven times the money in one hour for a no-doubt canned speech. That works out to 8 minutes and 10 seconds of work for what Flynn pulled in.
This highly informative article from Clarice Feldman at American Thinker adds much to the lengthy Victor Davis Hanson article we linked to yesterday. Read in combination you will be well-informed on what is currently known about the likely Obama White House spying on American citizens and the corruption there and of intelligence officials.
DLH with R Mall
*We credit the NYT for running the article, but where is the repetitive hype about the matter that they have no compunction against visiting on any remote connection between anything remotely Trump and remotely Russian.
