Republican nominee Donald Trump faces daily attacks from media, including outright falsehoods and stories based on anonymous sources. Meanwhile Dems’ nominee Hillary Clinton skates on allegations arising from files leaked and reported on by British media. Are attacks on Trump a concerted effort to give cover amid ongoing revelations about Mrs. Clinton’s sordid dealings?
The latest controversy to go unreported by most media involves business ties between Mrs. Clinton and a company who did business with ISIS.
WikiLeaks [@wikileaks] tweeted:
“Hillary Clinton took cash from, was director of, company that did deals with ISIS”
The link accompanying the Tweet goes to a UK media company, The Canary, an indie media outlet that favors aggressive action on what is now called ‘climate change’ and advocates for ‘Palestinians’. In other words, the site is certainly not right wing.
“An investigative report by the French daily Le Monde revealed in June that the corporation, the world’s leader in construction materials, had paid taxes to Isis middlemen, as well as other armed groups in Syria, to protect its cement business operations in the country.”
The corporation also does a lot of business with the government of France.
In the early 1990s Hillary Clinton sat on that company’s board.
The Canary reported on Mrs. Clinton:
“Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.
Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.”
The firm was also implicated in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s.
A conservative magazine in the US alleged Mrs. Clinton did “legal work” for the company during that time period before she sat on the board.
Adding insult to injury, The Canary said the global corporation has generously donated to the Clintons’ foundation:
“In 2013, Lafarge’s Executive Vice President for Operations, Eric Olson, was a ‘featured attendee’ at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.
The revelations are part of ongoing leaks not only from WikiLeaks but from various investigative agencies in the US like Judicial Watch.
It is customary for a Republican candidate to be disadvantaged by the powerful leftist media machine in the US, but it is difficult to understand why no media have focused on Mrs. Clinton’s role in the company that allegedly did business with ISIS.
Within the same time frame reported on by The Canary, WikiLeaks also alleged the files they acquired revealed “Clinton ‘celebrate[d] her role in killing #Libya‘s head of state which led to ISIS takeover.” The claim is linked to an article at WikiLeaks titled, A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war.
Libya engagement by the US, for instance, was justified by the executive branch of the Obama administration as a humanitarian intervention. That country posed no danger to the US homeland when President Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton decided to inject the US into Libya’s conflict. Congress was left out of the decision.
It is almost impossible to understand, considering turmoil around the globe and US foreign policy, how anyone could praise Mrs. Clinton’s performance as secretary of state.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Aug. 4, 2016)