Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

[FreakinDJ]

Move along folks - nothing to see here ....

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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’s 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.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[nc4bo]

1. .

How cozy.

[tularetom]

2. Benghazi was a false alarm, emailgate just the tip of the iceberg,

but the ties between the Clinton State Department and donors to the Clinton Foundation are where the real slime can be uncovered.

[Doctor_J]

3. hoo boy. If Clinton is the candidate, the ge campaign will be painful to watch

She's spent the last twenty years giving them ammunition. Plus her supporters go out of their way to insult and drive away Sanders supporters. Maybe if she loses, the party big shots will come to their senses.

[MissDeeds]

4. +1000

I agree on all points.

[840high]

5. ...+1

[reddread]

6. almost a shame to miss that

thanks a lot, Senator Sanders!

Her Supporters.com certainly do, they would appreciate a different landscape.
fake grass (still illegal), domestic gun control and foreign proliferation.
thats not too pretty to me.

I dont think real life supporters, (cant say Ive met two many)
have the same vituperative approach.
we should feel special, but
its how conservatives behave

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. I doubt they'll come to their senses.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[MisterP]

8. one part online tattletale, one part yellowcake, one part cartel putschists

stir gently and add a mint leaf

[JDPriestly]

13. Right.

[FreakinDJ]

14. DING DING DING .... We have a Winner folks

Will turn off the youth vote for a decade or more

[AZ Progressive]

19. That would depress the Democratic turnout and give a chance to Trump or Cruz or whoever is the...

Republican Nominee. Republicans win when they get their base out and depress the Democratic / liberal bases.

[SoapBox]

9. Compromised...

Doesn't even begin to describe her.

[delrem]

10. Half a million $ for one speech!

Has anybody in all the history of western democracies ever seen the like?

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Well, Ronald Reagan got a cool $2 million

for an 8-day speaking tour in Japan.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/magazine/tm-2327_1_nancy-reagan-foundation

[FreakinDJ]

15. Yes he was paid well for his "Services in Office"

[Art_from_Ark]

16. No doubt a lot of Japanese insiders got rich shorting the dollar

which tanked against the yen as a direct result of Reagan's Plaza Accord.

[JDPriestly]

12. It's called the appearancce of corruption and conflicts of interest.

Hillary probably did not intend to do anything wrong. I will give her the benefit of the doubt. But she should either have a foundation of that size or run for president. It is improper, unseemly and downright wrong to try to do both.

Americans may well assume that Hillary did nothing wrong. But people in other countries will see this as a sign of corruption.

This is a serious matter.

[Crystalite]

34. DQ. Disqualified.

If our system wasn't so thoroughly broken, party elders and others would have told her in no uncertain terms that she's not qualified and needs to step back and help find someone with a better chance of winning and less chance of bringing down the entire party.

[Bernblu]

17. This is unbelievable! $500K for a speech to a Russian Investment Bank! The Republicans will have

a field day with this and more! The Democratic establishment needs to do something. They need to back Bernie or at the very least back another candidate or we are not going to win in 2016. Between Wall Street, Russians and God knows what else, Hillary is not going to win. she is not liked to begin with. Imagine what they'll be saying after the Republicans start running ads 24-7 about the Clinton foundation quid pro quos while she was SOS.

[EndElectoral]

24. But her supporters will claim she donates that fee to charity-the Clinton Foundation

Yet why would a Russian Investment Bank pay Hillary 500K? Maybe there are no Russian charities they felt they could contribute a half million dollars to on their own, but needed to pay Hilary so she could give her speaker fee to the Clinton foundation so they could distribute these Russian funds to the correct charity?

Believe it or not there are posters here who believe this type of thing.

[Fawke Em]

36. Or they'll say she needed the money since the Clintons were "dead broke"

when they left the White House.

[AZ Progressive]

18. Expect a barrage of ads claiming the Clintons to be traitors, aiding the enemy

[HereSince1628]

20. Interesting, I speculated it wouldn't take 6 weeks for something to emerge

after the last congressional hearing.

This is pretty close to that expectation, but I don't expect it to have legs. It's about money greasing the skids for business, isn't that sop in DC.

No one is going to care, it's only about uranium.

[grasswire]

21. no wonder she acts entitled

the Clintons have been alchemists.

[99Forever]

22. Business as usual in Clintonville.

It's how they roll.

[AzDar]

23. Ugh. So MESSY.

[artislife]

25. Tell me again how excited I will feel

If she is our first female president.

[lindysalsagal]

26. Yeppers. The media's left-wing bias on full, unrepentant display.

They should be ashamed....



Sarcasm, for those who look to attack.

[moobu2]

27. Not this crap again.

[Historic NY]

28. Don't you just love to post Right Wing stuff thats been debunked....

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=28952

[FreakinDJ]

30. Newscorpse is not a credible sourse or a publication

Its a Blog

Anyone can put one up on the net and spew what ever cherry picked crap they wish - the rightwing has 1000s of them

Actually Newscorpse looks more to be some guy trying to hock his own book so that gives him even more incentive to distort and cheery pick

So what

[Historic NY]

31. And neither was the NY Times which published and retracted & worked with FOX news.....

to promote scumbag Peter Schweizers BS book...he was selling a book too.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/05/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-admits-hes/203528

Fox News uses input from New York Times reporter (!) for ‘Clinton Cash’ piece
Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow devoted considerable time to examining the agreements of major media outlets with Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” a soon-to-be-released book highlighting overlaps between the work of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. No surprise, said Maddow, that Fox News would be partnering with such an author, who advised Sarah Palin and assisted the George W. Bush White House with speechwriting. Some surprise, said Maddow, that a news org like the New York Times would strike an exclusive agreement with Schweizer.

Now for an even bigger surprise: Not only did the New York Times work with Schweizer; it also worked directly with Fox News!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/04/23/fox-news-uses-input-from-new-york-times-reporter-for-clinton-cash-piece/

Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
Republican activist and consultant Peter Schweizer's new book Clinton Cash, obtained by Media Matters ahead of its publication date, is a trainwreck of sloppy research and shoddy reporting that contains over twenty errors, fabrications, and distortions. Schweizer pushes conspiracies "based on little evidence" that are "inconsistent with the facts" and "false"; takes quotes "badly out of context"; excludes exculpatory information that undermines his claims; and falls for a fake press release.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/26/clinton-cash-crushed-facts-author-admits-evidence-clinton-crimes.html

'Clinton Cash' author can't even defend his wild claims on Fox News
First, former Bush speechwriter and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer claimed—with an assist from the New York Times—that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had approved a deal involving a Russian uranium mining company. Unfortunately for Schweizer and the Times the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it. But fear not! Schweizer had a fallback position, which he trotted out on Fox News Sunday, because of course Fox News:

WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?

SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So Schweizer's allegation basically boils down to that Hillary Clinton did not intervene in a process that hadn't risen to the level of needing the secretary's attention, and that she did not exercise veto power she didn't really have. Boy, those donors sure bought some extra-special treatment from her.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4/27/1380600/--Clinton-Cash-author-can-t-even-defend-his-wild-claims-on-Fox-News



5 Points On The Conservative Author Dishing Clinton Dirt To NYT and Fox News

His Institute Is Funded By The Kochs And Company
As Crooks and Liars pointed out, Schweizer's Government Accountability Institute, a 501(c)(3), is funded by three conservative powerhouse donors.

First up would be the infamous Koch brothers, who contribute to most of GAI's funding through the Franklin Center, a "free market" organization dedicated to "democratizing journalism." Also in play is the Koch-run Donors' Trust, a political "slush fund," according to the blog.

From Crooks and Liars:

Of the total $2.2 million received in 2012, $2 million came from the Franklin Center, the Koch-funded "watchdog" organization. Perhaps coincidentally, the Franklin Center also received a $2 million contribution in 2012 from Donors' Capital, the sister organization to Donors' Trust.

Next is the Mercer Family Foundation, headed up by the eponymous hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer. As Crooks and Liars noted, Mercer's main targets are usually congressmen trying to roll back the power of Wall Street. Mother Jones reported that Mercer is currently the top bankroller for Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) presidential campaign.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/peter-schweizer-clinton-cash-5-points



https://americanbridgepac.org/what-you-dont-know-about-the-clinton-cash-author/

[riversedge]

32. Do you think any of the REC's posters will even bother to read these rebuttals? They seem to

Last edited Sun Nov 29, 2015, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

be relishing in the smears of a Democratic candidate . Shameful.

[mcar]

35. They won't bother cause they don't care

It is shameful.

[Fawke Em]

37. ... or look to see it's from Media Matters which is in the tank for Hillary

and not care.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. ...

[MaggieD]

33. LOL - Clinton knew somebody, who knew somebody....

.... who knew somebody, etc. OMG!

This reminds me of the NYT famous whitewater fantasy that was never anything but bullshit accusations with no basis in fact.