The Oasis for
Rational Conservatives

Member Login

You are not currently logged in.








» Register
» Lost your Password?
Ice Palaces and Jungle Tribes
Wheeler Expeditions
Member Discussions
Article Archives
L i k e U s ! ! !
TTP Merchandise

WHY WOULD PUTIN FAVOR TRUMP AFTER INVESTING IN HILLARY?

Download PDF

Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
[Note: Please see Skye’s calculations below on how Putin’s investment in Hillary will make him $200 billion a year—JW]

Co-conspirators Against America

Co-conspirators Against America

Does Vladimir Putin want Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to win the presidency?

Those supporting Hillary claim that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to win, claiming that is why WikiLeaks is putting out the Hillary emails and speeches. Specifically, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, has been very explicit in charging that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to win.

The charge seems to be a bit odd, given that both the Clintons’ and the Podestas’ (John and his brother Tony’s) organizations have been recipients of large sums of money coming from Russian interests, apparently with the blessing of the Kremlin.

What is the problem? Did the Clintons and their people not stay bought, or is it all a deception? If the American people were to believe Russians are for Mr. Trump, it would hurt him.

Having been an economic adviser to senior Russian government officials during the 1992 transition from communism and subsequently involved in business with Russians, I quickly learned that the conventional wisdom was correct in that things are often not what they seem.

Winston Churchill perhaps said it best many decades ago: “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” — and that statement is equally true today.

Many foreign governments and their leaders, including the Russians, try to buy influence in Washington, by hiring lobbyists (including former Democrat and Republican members of Congress), law firms and public relations firms, to make their case for whatever issues concern them.

Most of this is perfectly legitimate and proper, provided that, when being paid by a foreign government or government-controlled entity, the lobbyist registers as an agent of the foreign government. But, as with most forms of government regulation, those so determined find legal or illegal ways around the regulations.

More than four years ago, To The Point in Jack Wheeler’s Is Obama on Putin’s Payroll? (April 2012), explained that, “Just like the Saudis, the KGB has journalists all over the world on their payroll… Putin has tasked it with demonizing natural gas fracking with life-or-death importance.”

Since then, several independent researchers, investigative journalists and columnists – including yours truly in Putin’s Bribes to Environmentalists Exposed (February 2015) – began providing evidence and reporting on apparent funds from Russian government-controlled entities funneling into U.S. environmental groups.

Researchers at the Environmental Policy Alliance have produced a very solid, well-documented report, which shows how tens of millions of dollars from Russian interests apparently flowed from a dark company in Bermuda [Klein Ltd.] through opaque environmental bundlers, such as the Sea Change Foundation, into major environmental lobbying organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters.

Multimillion-dollar Russian source contributions also went to the Clinton Foundation, the Podesta-directed Center for American Progress and the Podesta lobbying firm. The Russians supported these groups in their opposition to fracking, pipeline construction, and other oil and gas development, with the goal of depressing development to keep prices high.

Russia depends heavily on oil and gas exports, and those revenues had accounted for more than 50 percent of the Russian government’s budget.

The documents released by WikiLeaks and others contain a trove of information. Despite many well-documented articles (several by yours truly) about the Russian support for the anti-oil and gas development lobby, most of the organizations denied it or refused comment.

But thanks to the leaks, we now know that Hillary knew about it all along. In one of her speeches to an industry group on June 18, 2014, she stated:

“We were even up against phony environmental groups but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.” (I wonder how officials of the Sierra Club and the others like being referred to by Hillary as “phony environmental groups.”)

It is no surprise that Hillary would tell industry-banking groups that she was for fracking, more oil and gas development, pipeline expansion, and gas exports, while at the same time telling her environmental supporters the opposite.  (Now that many of her speeches are online, her specific contradictory statements are available for all to see.)

What is more disturbing is that as a senior government official Hillary Clinton (and obviously many others in the Obama administration) knew that the Russians were paying these environmental groups to influence policy while not reporting sources of the money as required by law or registering as foreign agents, and yet they took no action.

In June, the Supreme Court found in the case of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell that under relevant law it was not illegal for public officials to receive something of benefit, provided they did not undertake an official action in exchange.

The Russian source payments served to benefit officials of the Obama administration in their personal interests, and what the payers received in return was an apparent understanding they would not be investigated, let alone prosecuted, for violations of the law.

If Mr. Trump wins the election, all of the money Mr. Putin has directed toward Clinton interests, as well as her private emails and their blackmail possibilities (which his government almost certainly has) would be of little value.

Why, then, would Putin’s minions make it appear that he favors Mr. Trump? Could he have more on Mr. Trump than Mrs. Clinton — it seems unlikely — or does he think that by appearing to support Mr. Trump, he actually helps Hillary?

 Richard W. Rahn is chairman of Improbable Success Productions and on the board of the American Council for Capital Formation.

Skye’s calculations on Putin’s investment in Hillary:

Here’s the payoff headline:  Hillary Clinton Calls Ban on Future Fossil Fuel Extraction on Public Lands a “Done Deal.”

Note this is for all fossil fuels, coal and oil and gas.  Here’s another payoff-to-Putin headline specifically targeting fracking:  Hillary Clinton Calls for Banning Fracking on Public Lands.

She claims this is for the cause of “climate change.”  The reality is that she has been bribed (for thousandths of a penny on the dollar) by Vladimir Putin.

It is worth about $200,000,000,000 (not a typo, 200 billion)) per year to Russia and another roughly $200,000,000,000 per year to the Saudis  if Hillary wins because she will stop fracking in America, and the price of oil will at least double.

Both have supported the Clintons with big bucks and both expect to make a return of over 100,000% (not a typo) per year on their investments.

That is more than enough to buy a lot of corruption.  And a lot of war and terrorism.

Trump doesn’t have to be either smart or conservative to save us from that, but he does have to win.

Oil is now at around $50 per barrel thanks to US fracking which doubled US output from about 4.2 million barrels per day (MBD) pre-fracking (in the 2000-2008 era) to 8.5 MBD now.  Russia and Saudi Arabia are currently at roughly 10 MBD.

Russia’s average production cost is estimated at about $18 per barrel.  Before fracking, oil varied from about $90 – $120 per barrel, and would return to this level post US fracking ban since most oil is used for transportation and that consumption won’t greatly change within the next few years.

$45 – $18 = $27.  $27 x 10,000,000 BPD x 365 = $98.55 billion per year

$90 – $18 = $72.  $72 x 10,000,000 BPD x 365 = $262.8 billion per year

$120 – $18 = $102.  $102 x 10,000,000 x 365 = $372.3 billion per year

$262.8 billion per year – $98.55 billion per year = $164.25 billion per year

$372.3 billion per year – $98.55 billion per year = $273.75 billion per year

As to timing, a fracked oil well in tight shale (using the technologies generally used to date) produces most of its total production within the first year or two, then continues to produce a much smaller amount for decades.

If the Federalies ban fracking on private property, as Hillary has promised to do, we will go from feast to famine within a year or two. and Russia and Saudi Arabia and Iran, etc. will go from famine to feast.  That huge amount of money in bad hands is likely to buy a lot of arms, war, and terrorism.

Skye