One never ceases to marvel at the machinations of Mr. Globaloney, and I suspect that these stories, the shared by Mr. V.T., seem (at least to my mind) to have something to do with it:
Let's focus on the first article from the New York Post initially. Note the following:
Foreign governments will be encouraged to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s finances, as many are already turning off money spigots to the scandal-scarred group, The Post has learned.A source close to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team told The Post that the new administration plans to pressure the US ambassadors it will name to bring up the foundation with foreign governments — and suggest they probe its financial dealings.Trump said last week that he would not order an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server or her role in the foundation.But Trump’s statement didn’t preclude the backroom moves to investigate the group.
This is intriguing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the hint of a possible emerging strategy on the part of the incoming Trump Administration, for President-elect Trump's administration can hardly investigate a "foundation" with international extent and involvement without the cooperation of foreign governments. The problem is, will they actually do so, and thereby expose their own politicians' complicity in a growing web of corruption that now, pace Wikileaks, seems to involve everything from bribery and grifting to pedophilia rings? One might, initially, be tempted to say no, this will not work. However, the growing opposition to "business as usual" has not remained confined to American shores; Europe certainly has its own healthy share of the phenomenon, most recently expressed in the growing rise of opposition to the refugee policies of Merkel, Hollande, and Brussels bureaucrats. The political pressure is there, and if those issues can be coupled to the wider issue of corruption among the globaloney crowd, then governments and politicians having dealings with the Clinton Foundation might be hard-pressed to ward off demands for investigations. In any case, those investigations will go forward in the free and independent media, and countries like Russia, as evidenced from the second RT op-ed interview with Lew Rockwell, appear to be willing to chip in their own efforts.
Indeed, Mr. Globaloney's image is so tattered right now, that he may have decided a little house-cleaning, and some sacrifices (a.k.a., the Clintons) are in order just out of the sheer necessity to convince people that they are, indeed, trying to right past wrongs and clean house. Here too, the corporate controlled media versus the free and independent media enter the picture, for another casualty of the recent American political circus was the corporate media itself, which showed obvious, and indeed almost psychotic and pathological bias, for Mrs. Clinton. The current recount push being only one example, for as Mr. Trump has recently pointed out, most indications seem to be that voter fraud was largely in her behalf, raising the possibility that she did not win the popular vote either.
So it is an intriguing strategy that I am suggesting that Mr. Trump and his advisors are pursuing: internationalize the effort, and to the extent possible, involve Mr. Globaloney in the effort to clean his own rancid house.
Which brings us to the second article, the op-ed piece from RT's interview with Lew Rockwell, noted American political commentator. Note the following exchange and Mr. Rockwell's suggestive response:
RT:What’s your take on these recent (events)?Lew Rockwell: … Trump was right about Hillary being crooked, about the Clinton foundation being crooked, and I don’t think we’ve begun to see how much money was actually paid. So we know from the Department of the Environment and from this other German agency – millions of Euros – they got much more money than that from all different governments. The question is: why politics are corrupt. It is not unusual for politicians to be paid off. They thought they were buying - probably the most benign explanation - they thought they were buying preferment from the future Clinton administration. This proves what the Clinton Foundation actually was – a way to bribe Hillary Clinton and her aide Bill Clinton.But I think maybe there is other stuff going on too. This was obviously not German government agencies giving the money, even though it was the poor taxpayers footing the bill. But it was individuals determining this to happen. Were these guys going to personally profit; what kind of crookedness is there on the part of the German politicians and German bureaucrats, as well as the Americans? They should just alert us to the nature of politics, why we don’t want political decisions being made in these kinds of areas, why we don’t want bribes being paid. I am glad for the exposure… And how about getting it back since they didn’t get the favors they expected, really shouldn’t the Clintons give this money back to the German people? Maybe [the German people] could use it to keep some of the migrants out. That would be a nice change. (Emphasis added)
And there one has, perhaps(to continue in my line of high octane speculative reasoning) the other component of the strategy: drop the memes into public discussion, and drive the creation of pressure at the popular level, in this case, the meme being "you took the money, and didn't deliver, now we want it back." The article goes on to note that the German government had no preparations or contacts with the Trump campaign, so certain was it of a Hillary victory, thus emphasizing the geopolitical fallout and implications of his candidacy. Indeed, if one recalls, Russia almost alone was sending messages to both candidates during the process, and it was Mr. Putin who reached out to Trump shortly after his victory, while Hollande and Merkel whined and complained. In any case, Rockwell is here suggesting the real problem: the Mafia-like nature of contemporary politics in the west. He is not, of course, so naive as to believe that the money will actually be returned. The process and strategy here is much more subtle: to create the questions in Germany, at the popular level, of where that German money given to the Clintons came from, and who authorized its transfer. And again, the corporate controlled media in Germany will be no less reluctant to pursue the matter than its American counterparts. The real pursuit and inquiries will come from the free and independent media there, from a grassroots level, and perhaps even find expression in the Alternativ fur Deutschland and other opposition groups to Frau Merkel's government. One might expect, too, this to spill over into similar inquiries in France and the Netherlands. One may even anticipate, perhaps, similar revelations of similar dealings coming from those countries.
Of course, time will tell if any of these high octane speculations and predictions come true or not. But my bet is, watch for the stirrings of these types of questions, beginning in Europe, but quickly extending elsewhere internationally.