Posted on 11/03/2016 6:30:09 AM PDT by Strategy
On June 4, 2013, at the verdant plantation-style Inn at Palmetto Bluff in Bluffton, South Carolina, Hillary Clinton spoke in strikingly ambitious terms of her plans for America's energy boom to a private audience in a speech for the global investment bank Goldman Sachs. "The energy revolution in the Untited States is just a gift," she said in one of three speeches that year for which the bank paid her $675,000. "We can have a North American energy system that will be unbelievably powerful. If we have enough of it, we can be exporting and supporting a lot of our friends and allies."
Clinton meant exporting oil and gas to allies who are heavily reliant on Russian imports. The Democratic nominee's private positions on energy, as indicated in speeches released by Wikileaks in October, suggest how she might use America's oil and gas industry as a bludgeon against Moscow. While her campaign declined to comment for this story, her speeches also made it clear that Clinton wants the U.S. to lead an environmentally friendly energy revolution to tackle climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at europe.newsweek.com ...
Yeah, yeah, Newsweek.
Predictably, parroting the Clinton line.
What a joke you have become.
It’s simple. Putin doesn’t want war with the US and he knows Hillary Clinton means war with the US.
NewsWEAK. Even I am not buying the idea Putin fears Hitlery. Look, I think Putin might prefer Trump only because he thinks he needs a partner to destroy radical Islam.
You’ve have to be doing an enormous amount of recreational drugs to believe Putin “fears” the “sick and tired” old lady. This is a joke.
” . . . how she might use America’s oil and gas industry as a bludgeon against Moscow. . . . her speeches also made it clear that Clinton wants the U.S. to lead an environmentally friendly energy revolution to tackle climate change.”
This article is about as trustworthy as the self-contradictory claims made in the excerpt above.
That's the take-away line here (a legal bribe was paid). Everything else in the story is nonsense.
She’ll probably be on a gurney before the end of the year, to avoid jail time ...
Trump is more predictable: he will look out for US interests, and Russia can both understand and deal with that.
With Hillary - she’s a wild card since she will act for her own interests... which will shift depending on two considerations: power and money. Putin therefore has no idea which way the wind will blow from one month to the next.
That may push Putin to act in ways (like he’s doing in the Middle East now) because Hillary doesn’t care about things like ISIS or energy supplies. Hillary cares about Hillary.
Where's the laugh button???
Newsweak and Time don’t have enough pages to cover a decent size bird cage.
Maybe he worries that he will have to be near her since she is known to smell like boiled cabbage, urine and farts.
Funny how quickly conciliatory reset buttons have gone out of style.
Guess liberals must have figured that if their attempt at rapprochement failed once the cowboy left office, diplomacy with Russia is dead. Therefore, we must go so hawkish with them that we need a no fly zone over who-cares Syria and risk a nuclear war. Simply amazing how aggressive they’ll get with a nuclear power but some 7th century bearded throat slitters? Tread lightly, my friends.
Nuclear war. She’s an idiot. Trump has already taken actions to smooth over any chance of war with Russia. Hillary is belligerent and would get us into a world war; it is what Democrats do.
Wow the BS factor is deep here.
Who is more likely to be held hostage by the radical Environmentalists in their party. Clinton or Trump?
Who is more likely to continue the Obama practice of focusing US Energy development on corrupt slush fund “Green Energy” boondoggles?
Who is more likely to actively push legislation on the absurdity of the “man made global climate change” Clinton or Trump?
Hillary would probably trounce out Madeline Albright to go around the world with a Reset Button again.
I don’t think I’ve touched a NewsWeak since like 2004...on board some trans-Atlantic flight.
Who reads their stuff anymore? Same with Time....loser publication.
I thought newspeak went out of business.
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.