BREAKING: More Russia Collusion – Hillary Blocked Human Rights Legislation For $500K Russian Payoff

ELDER PATRIOT – Almost everybody knows by now that in 2010 Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech he gave to the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital that was double his normal speaking fee.  Then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was so pleased with Clinton’s words that he personally expressed his appreciation to the former U.S. president.  Now we know why.

At that time, Renaissance Capital was the reason Congress was debating the Magnitsky Act a bill written to designate Russia as human-rights abusers and that sough to impose sanctions on the already economically strapped nuclear power in an attempt to bring them into line.

Now new evidence has surfaced via WikiLeaks that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was actively engaged in trying to hide the $500K emolument her husband received for his speech opposing the Magnitsky Act.

Hillary’s efforts to block the legislation from passing tat only further fuels charges against her – that disgraced former F.B.I. Director James Comey refused to bring – that she used her position as Secretary of State to sell access and influence to foreign governments in exchange for cash. 

Recall this New York Times headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.  The article details how “the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton” approved the sale of Uranium One that “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” 

Given that “uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security” it’s hard to see how this served the interests of the United States.  It is, however, easy to see how this benefitted Bill and Hillary.  Their foundation ultimately received upwards of $140 million due to the generosity of Uranium One’s investors.

From the NY Times:

Finally there’s this potentially damning little ditty:  Natalia Velenitskaya – the honey pot at the center of the Donald Trump Jr. uproar – was working with Hillary to defeat the Magnitsky Act.  In fact that was ultimately the reason she asked for the meeting with the younger Trump.

It should be clear to everyone by now that there’s very little interest among Washington’s ruling elites to root out corruption. The fact is they are actively engaged in blocking President Trump from draining their swamp by tying him up with unsubstantiated claims against him that is becoming a glaring embarrassment to our once highly respected intelligence agencies.

It’s time for the Department of Justice to do what Loretta Lynch wouldn’t do – empanel a grand jury and seek the indictment of William Jefferson and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’