The Clintons Represent the Crony Class

RUSH: Tell me if you think this is relevant, folks, if it's meaningful or not. Hillary and Tim Kaine are not drawing crowds at all wherever they go. They literally are not. They're showing up in high school gymnasiums and they're one-third full. That's why you're not hearing about these rallies. Hillary and Kaine went on a bus tour after the Democrat convention. You didn't hear about it over the weekend because nobody showed up.

And, to this day, every Trump rally is overflowing and the energy at every Trump rally is hardly containable. It's electric. You know why you don't see it? You know why the media is not covering those Trump rallies as much as they did, besides the fact that they've now thrown in with Hillary, Hillary's now the opponent so they've made their choice, but there's another reason. I think -- this is my personal opinion -- I think because Trump's not saying anything marginally different.

He still does his improv and he still does his shoot-from-the-hip. But now they're calling it for what it is. You know, I was analyzing a Trump political appearance from day one. I recognized it immediately. I knew exactly the technique. I know exactly what he's doing. It's stream of consciousness. He doesn't go out with prepared remarks. His only risk is that his brain shuts down and he forgets everything, and of course that's not gonna happen. So whatever pops into his mind, he talks about it, interrupts himself and eventually gets back to the point that he was making.

Well, I think it's The Politico today -- I'll find it -- has a story on exactly what Trump is doing. Now they're reporting it. And now they're reporting that there isn't anything new in it. It's the same thing stuff. There's no reason for the media to back out of their normal programming and go to a Trump rally and cover it 'cause it's the same stuff that he was saying -- this is what they're saying. But, to your point, or actually my point, Trump rallies are still overflowing. There are still more people that want to get in than there is room for.

The energy inside is still off the charts, and it is such that it is not at all representative of the way Trump is being reported on in the media. And yet, all of this stuff that's happening is real. But the fact that the Clintons, you know, over-poll is -- they still end up winning and we've got perhaps in this election, you know, a third party, and maybe four choices will be there instead of just two, which monkeys with polling results anyway. Makes them less reliable.

Anyway, the frustrating thing is that you just said it: Hillary does not have a record to run on. There's no way under the sun that a Democrat can run for reelection touting the last eight years as some of the greatest years in America because they're not. This is the slowest economic recovery since 1949. This is gonna be the first presidency to never achieve a growth rate of at least 3% in any year, the first one. And it's not by accident. It's not happenstance.

Obama has policies that have been put in place that have acted like giant brakes on the US economy. And I believe it's purposeful. But you can't, you can't, as the government, just swallow large chunks of the economy like Obama has done and expect the economy to keep producing jobs and to keep growing with wages increasing. It's not possible. It can't happen. And Obama and the Democrats are not through.

The whole Democrat primary campaign was astounding because it was both Bernie Sanders and Hillary running on how much change was needed, how much improvement needed to be made. They really had to walk a tightrope, but because they know they've got media coverage on the downside, they were relatively free to go ahead and attack the status quo so as to position themselves as being the one to fix it and improve it and make it better. And there would be the occasional mention of what a great job Obama's done, but nobody could have brought us back from the depths of where George Bush left us.

But she's got nothing to offer. She doesn't have one policy that'll change anything for the better. She's incompetent herself. She has no business being president. The only reason she's going to be president or has been nominated is because the Democrats owe her big time and because of a reputation established by these very same Northeastern elites way back in her college days that she was some brilliant babe to come along undeniably smarter than everybody else.

They get these images and these reputations burnished and they live their lives and no matter how stupid they are, no matter what dumb mistakes and moves they make, they are still heralded as better and brighter than all the rest of us. She isn't. She cannot hold an audience. She doesn't connect with an audience. She does not have deep personal loyalty. The people voting for her are not rooting for her. They're rooting for the Democrat Party. The people voting for Hillary are maybe not even rooting for the Democrat Party. They're rooting against us.

She doesn't have any personal loyalty above and beyond her tight, close circle of friends and supporters and donors. She wrote this book for which she got $14 million, she couldn't draw flies to a book signing. She couldn't sell enough copies of the book to get anywhere near making back the advance that she got. She didn't care. This is a woman who has sold access to her presidency.

Have you ever heard the term "country club Republican"? The country clubs have all become Democrat, in the sense that the people that join country clubs usually, particularly in the Northeast, are a bunch of Wall Street titans, hedge fund people, investment bankers and so forth, and they are in bed with the Democrat Party. There is no such thing as a country club Republican anymore. They are country club Democrats. But it's not even that. They're country club cronies. There are so many powerful people, so many influential people who don't care anymore about the future of the country as founded. That's not their concern.

Now that cronyism has been established, it has firmly become something that you can aspire to as a human being, as a businessman, that people that run the government now are willing to sell it to you. The people that run the government are willing to sell you access. You donate to them or you fund them or you employ their family or whatever, and they'll get you favorable treatment from the Oval Office, from the Senate, to the House of Representatives, it doesn't matter. Hello, cronyism.

Cronyism can help you as a CEO put your competition out of business without you having to innovate a single day, without you having to out-compete your opposition. And that's why the country club Republican doesn't exist and have become country club Democrats or country club liberals, but for the most part they're just cronyists. They're all salivating. They're all hyperventilating at the thought of being close to power. They don't care if that power has a destructive aspect to it.

They seemingly don't care if the power, meaning the president, meaning Obama, is going to implement policies that are gonna damage people, that hurt the country, and damage its future. They don't care. As long as they're close to power, and being close to power protects them and their interests and their business, that's all that matters.

So the patriots, where are they? This is another thing that bugs everybody. It's not so much just the trade deals, the trade deals, yes, but it's how the trade deals happened and why and what it represents. And what it really represents is there's no reality and there doesn't seem to be any patriotism anywhere in the highest positions of power in this country.

It seems like it's self-interest and selfishness everywhere. And people are angling to get even closer to this power, and now Mrs. Clinton's come along, and she has signaled the world that she's willing to sell. She will sell herself. She will sell her government. She will sell her policies. She will sell whatever for personal enrichment. She and her husband are obsessed with getting rich. They have been since their Arkansas days.

He said the Clintons are misunderstood. They're actually Bonnie and Clyde, and the United States is the bank. They're just a bunch of thugs running around trying to get rich as they can. They happen to be liberals at the same time; so when they are in power, it's a double whammy against the rest of us. So everything I've just said to you, there are people clamoring for Trump to say it.

They're longing for Trump to go after her this way, and it wouldn't even be an "attack." I didn't just "attack" Hillary. I just described her for you. All I did was tell you she can't draw a crowd; she has no personal connection. There are not people rooting for her -- and I mean, average, ordinary Americans. Yeah, Drudge has this story about Barbra Streisand thinks the election's over and she's already out there singing, "Happy Days Are Here Again."

That's the kind of stuff that comes back and bites you in the Malibu ass. You don't start doing this kind of stuff. People notice it. And our caller here, our first caller from Ocean City, Maryland... He didn't get to the point that he was gonna go get to but I... You know, sometimes I have to... Callers get so nervous when they get on the air here.

They become so stunned that they're actually speaking with me, that they sometimes forget their primary point. This guy's primary point was that Obama attacking Trump, you people don't get it: That helped Trump! That enraged people, what Obama did yesterday. The media doesn't report it that way, but his point was gonna be, "You wait. People are outraged at Obama for that."

Francisco d'Anconia's "Aristocracy of Pull" come to life.

Hillary and billionaire Frank Giustra, left, (Guistra rec'd tax dollars from Hillary).

Hes a gold mining mogul......he facilitated the takeover of US uranium assets.... this billionaire received your tax dollars from Hillary's State Dept.

Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors. Giustra's $100 million contributions go directly:

<><> (1) to the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation, and,

<><> (2) to the Canada-based "Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership."

The "Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership" in turn sends money to the Clinton Foundation......(according to Canadian tax records researched by "Clinton Cash" author Schweizer).

DATA Sources: Clinton Foundation, CGEP (Canada);
Canadian tax records; compiled by Alberto Cuadra and
Rosalind Helderman May 3 at 8:11 PM

ARTICLE LINK http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wealthy-canadian-helps-fund-the-clinton-foundation/2015/05/03/f855ea22-f1ea-11e4-90bc-afe06f530791_graphic.html

============================================

The NY Times reported the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership" collected about $33 million US tax dollars from Hillary's State Dept between 2008 and 2013.....$25 million of which was passed back across the border to the US-based Clinton Foundation.

Giustra then pledged $100 million to the Foundation after Clinton helped him clinch the mega-bucks uranium deal.

ITEM---millions of dollars and 1,100 donors are shrouded in mystery in the Canadian Giustra/Clinton operation. The Clinton Foundation signed a memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (as the charity was then-known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow the same protocols.

SURPRISE: It hasnt.

Caught w/ his pants down, Giustra/s backtracking like crazy---saying Canadas federal privacy law forbids the Canadian-registered Clinton charity, from revealing its donors.

A memo he provided news organs cites fiduciary obligations to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” Giustra says.

However, Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of the Clinton/Giustra claims. A former director knowledgeable about tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasnt aware of any tax laws that would prevent the Clinton charity from releasing its donor names. " There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing donor names. It's entirely up to them."

The report....“From Russia With Money — Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism”..... raises serious questions about the cash connections between the Clintons and participants in Hillary's the State Department-era’s failed five-year effort to improve, or “reset,” US-Russia relations. A Moscow-based Silicon Valley- styled developer of biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies called “Skolkovo” — allegedly poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton was at the center of these efforts author Peter Schweizer argues. “Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The NY Post.

Hillary presented the "reset button" to Rusia in 2009. Circa 2010--Ex-Pres Clinton is
in Moscow having a laugh w/ Putin. Bill also got a 500,000 speaking fee in Moscow.

========================================

......the FBI expanded its email probe to include the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation and State Dept business.

<><> Then-SoS Hillary approved a deal that allowed Russia to acquire 20 percent of all US uranium production capacity.....entities with vested interests in seeing the deal go through donated $2.5 million to the Clintons......

<><> before the uranium deal was finalized (as insurance?) Bill Clinton gave a speech in Moscow, and was paid a cool $500,000.

================================================

NYT REPORT: 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 Company 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.

============================================

The NYT report noted that these uranium investors
also donated to the Clinton Foundation, as follows:

<><> Canadian Frank Giustra—globe-trotting pal of Bill-—donated $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more to the Clinton Foundation. Giustra built a company that later merged with Uranium One. Seems to have facilitated the uranium sell-off.

<><> Canadian Ian Telfer—donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.

<><>Paul Reynolds—donated $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.

<><>Frank Holmes-—donated $250,000 to $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.

<><> Canadian Neil Woodyer-—Founded Endeavour Mining with Giustra—donated $50,000 to $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Adviser to Uranium One.

<><> GMP Securities Ltd.-—Donating portion of profits to the Clinton Foundation. Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One. (could also be part of the money-laundering apparat---aided and abetted under cover of the "do-good foundations.")

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.