Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

[Jesus Malverde]

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

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.

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

[NYC_SKP]

1. "Hillary and her campaign are a large balloon floating around in search of a pin."

This is serious, this one is not going to go away.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/hillary-clinton-runs-white-house-and-row-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Did Hillary help Putin control the worlds uranium?

Boggles the mind.

[NYC_SKP]

4. A good SOS would have been aware of such exchanges as occurred in this case....

That same SOS would be expected to investigate whether any international laws or national guidelines were being violated, and potentially intervened.

Instead, we have the SOS as a board member of the NGO that is taking millions from participants in that exchange.

At the very least, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, a quid pro quo.

This is stinky.

[NYC_SKP]

5. More:

Basically, as SOS you allow a deal to go through and then later a bucket of millions is passed to your family Global Initiative.

It’s time for political scandal season to begin in the US, and one of our first entries involves Russia, the global uranium market, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

What are the allegations?

You can pay Bill to get to Hillary. In 2010, then-US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was part of a US government committee that approves foreign purchases of US assets. She signed off on a deal that allowed Russia’s atomic energy agency to purchase Uranium One, a mining company behind one-fifth of US uranium production. Since 2005, investors in the mining concern, and specifically a financier named Frank Giustra, gave tens of millions to the Clinton Global Foundation, and in 2010, while the committee was considering the deal, a Russian investment bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

What’s new?

Failure to disclose. The Clinton Global Foundation had not previously disclosed $2.35 million donations from the Canadian chairman of Uranium One between 2009 and 2013, as Russia’s energy agency negotiated first a minority stake and eventually majority ownership of the company. This is despite an agreement with the Obama administration to disclose foreign donations.

Is there an innocent explanation?

Yes. In 2010, the US was still pushing for a “reset” of its relationship with Russia, and allowing this kind of investment is one way to reduce tensions. As the energy deal was progressing, Russia agreed to support increased sanctions on Iran to stop nuclear proliferation. The foreign investment committee had eight other members besides Clinton, including its chair, then-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates and then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Update: Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary, further disputes pay-to-play narrative.

So what’s the scandal?

Crappy disclosure and enforcement. Whether or not anyone can prove that donations to Bill Clinton and the family foundation actually influenced Hillary Clinton’s role in approving this deal, the real scandal (repeat after me) is always what’s legal: We’ve already seen how secretary of state Clinton elided FOIA requests by using her own e-mail server. Clinton said she “opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”

more at: http://qz.com/389829/breaking-down-the-russian-uranium-deal-hanging-over-hillary-clintons-campaign/

[Newsjock]

3. Bullshit story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/23/1379692/-It-takes-ten-paragraphs-before-New-York-Times-mentions-its-latest-Clinton-hit-piece-is-speculation
It takes ten paragraphs before New York Times mentions its latest Clinton hit-piece is speculation

Today's New York Times has an utterly devastating report on the Clinton State Department signing off on a Russian agency taking control of a Canadian uranium mining company after those sneaky Canucks donated money to the Clinton Foundation and Bill was paid for a speech in Moscow. Quid pro quo! Smoking Gun! Oh, wait ... ten paragraphs in, the New York Times remembers to mention:

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

... because as it turns out, "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal." Oh. The smoke from the gun clears. Well, not really, as the article continues for another 60 or so paragraphs and this story will be breathlessly cited across the media universe, so ... mission accomplished!

[spin]

6. I understand how such a story might appear on Fox News but I find myself wondering ...

why it is published in the New York Times. Why is the Gray Lady doing hit pieces on Hillary? Are they trying to get another candidate like Elizabeth Warren to throw her hat into the ring?

In passing, I would like to see Warren run. No more Clintons or Bushes!!!

[Jesus Malverde]

7. Amen brother...nt

[NYC_SKP]

8. Some interesting figures that came from simple research about CGI:

I work with nonprofits and thought I'd look up the numbers for CGI.

You know, some orgs send a lot of their revenue on direct assistance while others spend a lot on salaries and expenses.

Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.

Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:

Revenue: $28,221,924

Grants paid: $8,975,872

Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577

Other expenses: $12,296,668

Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf

GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.

Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.

Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.

And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.

There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.

Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.

The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.

If the party isn't going to vet candidates, and the media isn't going to vet candidates, then it's up to us, I guess.

[KoKo]

9. "If the party isn't going to vet candidates, and the media isn't going to vet candidates,

then it's up to us, I guess."

Well said!

--------
It's always been up to us since "Selection 2000" and after. And we've been proven correct, time after time...but, that's not agreed on until the damage has been done and a new atrocity to our Democracy is underway.