Collusion Between The State Department & The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D’Andrilli
(Part 4 of 5)

Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama
Collusion Between The State Department & The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)– The New York Times reported, in 2015, in a story captioned, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” “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.”

The Times article goes on to say, “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.” 

The New York Times categorically states that Hillary Rodham Clinton used her Department for personal gain. Worse yet, both of the Clintons—Bill and Hillary—allowed their lust for personal wealth to override their duty to protect and defend our Country.

Russia is our adversary. Clintons’ supporters and cronies assert that Donald Trump threatens our national security. Yet, here the Clintons sit actually selling out our Country for personal gain. Whatever speculations Hillary Clinton’s supporters may cast upon Donald Trump, Americans need not resort to speculation to know that Bill Clinton, a past United States President, and Hillary Clinton, a past Secretary of State and U.S. Senator who seeks to become the 45th President of the United States, do not, never have, and never will have our Nation’s best interests at heart. Their duty to Country will never outweigh their greed, and their lust for power and personal aggrandizement.

As reported by the weblog, Politifact, the Clinton Foundation also received large sums of money from Middle Eastern Countries, namely, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Morocco, and Yemen. Receipt of monies from Yemen is particularly troubling, since terrorist groups are extremely active in that Country. The U.S. has conducted Drone strikes regularly in that Country, as reported in that same Politifact article.

The Daily Caller reports that the Clinton Foundation took in nearly one hundred million dollars from other autocratic Middle Eastern Countries.

Fox News reports that the Clinton Foundation has taken in millions of dollars from Countries that imprison homosexuals. Curiously, Rights Groups, who fervently support the rights of homosexuals and transgender individuals, are notably “silent” about that fact. Why is that? Does that not illustrate hypocrisy?

These incidents, of course, are just the tip of the ice-berg. But the gravity of the few incidents mentioned here explains Hillary Clinton’s true reason—the “true true” and “the whole true” —for using private email servers. We know now that Clinton deliberately risked the hacking of her personal servers. Her use of private, personal email servers was intentional. She didn’t utilize private, personal email servers to conduct high level federal Government business—servers maintained in her home—as a matter of simple convenience. That rationale, as Hillary Clinton expressly conveyed to the public, is a hopelessly transparent ruse. We can dismiss that ridiculous notion out-of-hand.

The American public can reasonably conclude that Hillary Clinton used private, personal email servers, instead of official Government servers to conduct federal Government business, precisely because she found it necessary to cover her tracks. She did so to preclude documentation of the Foundation’s activities in the National Archives. She did so to make investigation of the illegal conduct involving the Clinton Foundation, difficult.

But, if Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, manufactured foreign and domestic policies for the benefit of others, for personal pecuniary gain—channeling those proceeds through the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation—she committed a federal crime—a third felony.

Beyond the two felonies the public knows about which include: the mishandling of classified Government material, 18 U.S.C. § 793, and lying to a federal official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The third federal crime, another felony, is that of bribery. The federal crime of bribery is set down in 18 U.S.C. § 201, titled, Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses. The federal crime of Bribery says:

(a)         “For the purpose of this section—

(1)         the term ‘public official’ means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

(2)         the term ‘person who has been selected to be a public official’ means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

(3)         the term ‘official act’ means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b)         Whoever—

(1)         directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A)        to influence any official act; or

(B)        to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C)        to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2)         being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A)        being influenced in his the performance of any official act;

(B)        being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C)        being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3)         directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4)         directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c)         Whoever—

(1)         otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

(A)        directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or

(B)        being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.”

During the eight and one-half hour Hearing of the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on July 7, 2016, in Washington, D.C., U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, Republican, Utah, pointedly asked the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and whether that investigation was “tied” to Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email servers to conduct official Government business. Comey was, on that score, curiously reticent about answering. In fact, he was tight-lipped.

CHAFFETZ: Did you look at the Clinton Foundation?

COMEY: I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.

CHAFFETZ: Was the Clinton Foundation tied into this investigation?

COMEY: I’m not going to answer that.

That little exchange, concerning the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, is the extent of inquiry into the Foundation in eight and one-half hours of Hearing. Strange!

Yet, the American public has a right to know if the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is in bed with multinational businesses, with foreign Governments, with UN affiliated NGOs, and with wealthy, powerful individuals.

The simple suggestion that a foundation—any foundation—attracting the influential individuals and entities the Clinton Foundation does, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, does so because such individuals and entities simply have altruistic concerns and wish for the foundation, to spend the monies received accordingly, does precious little, in itself, to inspire confidence. Rather, and specifically, the machinations of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation inspires incredulity, at least, or otherwise simply defies rational belief.

The Clinton Foundation does more—much more. The Clinton Foundation conducts business with major players around the world and generates tens and hundreds of millions of dollars because these players seek to influence foreign and domestic policies that benefit them. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton wield influence within the highest levels of the U.S. Government. They can deliver! Selling out our Country for personal gain is the Clinton’s raison d’etre.  The power brokers know this. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton can be bought. They know that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been bought in the past, and in the present. They know that U.S. President Hillary Clinton would be willing to sell out our Country, in the future.

If Hillary and Bill Clinton have manipulated the direction of this Country to benefit foreign interests and sponsors, to the detriment of U.S. interests and to the detriment of the well-being of the Nation’s citizenry, we must also consider the possibility that the Clintons—Bill and Hillary—have committed the most serious crime imaginable—treason.

We will, in the next Arbalest Quarrel article, explore the legal grounds for indicting the two on charges of treason—the most heinous crime any American citizen can commit.

The F.B.I. Director’s reticence in discussing the machinations of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation may bespeak the worst possible horror for this Nation: that the Clintons and their Foundation is not accountable to or beholding to U.S. law and that the Clinton’s Foundation, backed by their foreign donors, is more powerful than the U.S. Government!

Most disheartening and disconcerting is the fact that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation still exists. So, in the event Hillary Rodham Clinton secures the Office of United States President, she will be in the position to use, and will undoubtedly use, and leverage the Office of U.S. President to accumulate, unto the Clinton family, ever large masses of cash. That is bad enough. Worse, Bill and Hillary Clinton will be able to formulate, will have the desire to formulate, and will in fact formulate and implement American domestic and foreign policy to benefit their donors. That policy—sold to the American People—will actually benefit those foreign and domestic actors who remit tens of millions of dollars to the Clintons, through their Foundation. Those donors will expect and will receive favorable treatment—treatment that may and, in many instances, will be detrimental—perhaps severely detrimental—to the well-being of our Nation and to the well-being of our Nation’s citizenry, in contravention to our Nation’s Constitution and to its laws.

What can Congress do to prevent the travesty of a Bill and Hillary Dyarchy in this country?

Continued:

CONGRESS MUST ENACT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2016 AND CONGRESS MUST DO SO, NOW!

Next Gun Button
Read Part 5

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
5 years ago

If she can do all this to us as Secretary of State, just think what she can do to us as President. At best, we could see colossal grassroots revolt, defiance and perhaps an uncooperative bloc of whole states. This is a very scary lady.

John
John
5 years ago

You make great points. Too many of our “leaders” put power and profit ahead of country. That leads to a lot of people with heads turned and hands out. Who is who. How much more will the individual take. The writing is on the wall and it points to action.

marc disabled vet
marc disabled vet
5 years ago
Reply to  John

THAT’S FOR SURE !
BHO already wants his retirement salary upped before
he gets out !