NY Times just exposed another bombshell Clinton scandal: "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 4:43 PM GMT
    The headline in Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when the newspaper 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.
    ....
    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.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 4:47 PM GMT
    Wonder why she used a private mail server and deleted the emails..... icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 10:45 PM GMT
    Think of it:

    The transactions gives Putin a significant control of US uranium deposits, which he could ship to Iran.

    Additional summary points:

    http://weblog.ws/2015/04/23/the-clinton-foundation-received-millions-from-investors-as-putin-took-over-20/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 23, 2015 10:48 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidAnd I'm sure there's plenty more to come.

    Another report stated she was advised not to pursue this by State Dept employees but did anyway. With all this coming out, there are likely whistleblowers who will testify. All the deleting of emails won't shut them up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 12:36 AM GMT
    Report: Clinton Collected Millions In Russian Cash Before Approving Russian Uranium Deal

    In a pattern that is becoming all too familiar, Hillary Clinton never disclosed these contributions to the White House or State Department officials.

    It appears, though, that millions in undisclosed payments to Hillary’s foundation weren’t enough for the 2016 Democratic presidential hopeful. As is often the case with the Clinton, a six-figure speech by Bill Clinton was also scheduled right after the Russians agreed to buy Uranium One:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/23/report-clinton-collected-millions-in-russian-cash-while-negotiating-russian-uranium-deal/
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 24, 2015 2:32 AM GMT
    Yep...

    And the book isn't even out yet.

    Five years of refiling taxes for Hillary, Bill and Chelsea... and most likely for the Clinton Charitable Money Laundering Fund.... Neither Bill or Hillary would do a press conference about it and threw it off on Chelsea...

    Russian millions to the Clintons while Russia gets Uranium in the US and Canada...

    GE donates to the CCMLF and gets a 2.7 billion dollar contract with Algeria with connections to Hillary...

    ... Now I'm reading about Bill and Hillary getting more than Bob Menendez from Salomon Melgen, staying at his Jamaica estate and all the "girlfriends" of Melgen who received US EB5 visas... no doubt through Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham and his Gulf Coast Fund Management whose website strangely went off line last week.

    ... the deal with Victor Pinchuk being the biggest individual donor to the Clinton Fund breaking sanctions to ship to Iran that the Sate Department was in charge of enforcing...

    and the best they can do is send out their henchmen to yell "right wing conspiracy."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 4:24 AM GMT
    The article cited by the OP is hardly a smoking gun. I work in big philanthropy. It is not unusual for major donors to transfer wealth to charities when they cash in on the sale of a company, which is what happened in this case.

    The article indicates that the money in question came from private Canadian businessmen, not from the Russian government.

    As far as charities taking money from overseas companies, and in some cases governments, that is also not unusual in the world of big foundations and big charities. And yes, sometimes governments, even controversial governments, finance worthy causes through foundations, NGO's and university programs.

    Big donations come from the rich and powerful, many with borderline ethics issues. It is how the big-time philanthropy industry functions.

    In philanthropic giving, gifts are freely given and do not have binding contracts. Other types of fundraising, such as grants and contracts, are legally binding. But none of the articles I've seen on the Clinton foundation indicates this restricted type of giving.

    Anyhow, this is all a lot of fuss that will not amount to much.

    If Republicans want to look at controversial and questionable bedfellows in fundraising they need only look to their own supporters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 4:37 AM GMT
    Nivek said[1 ]The article indicates that the money in question came from private Canadian businessmen, not from the Russian government.

    [2] Anyhow, this is all a lot of fuss that will not amount to much.

    [3] If Republicans want to look at controversial and questionable bedfellows in fundraising they need only look to their own supporters.

    [1] The direct transfers were from Canada, but the trail from Russia is apparent.
    "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."

    [2] It's already amounting to a lot and starting to snowball, so good luck with your wishful thinking.

    [3] So do you think the NY Times is acting on behalf of the Republicans? Do you believe anyone questioning anything Clinton is part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? Good luck with that one too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 5:13 AM GMT
    I'll use the term "scandal" when this story is better vetted. It's a little breathlessly trumpeted, considering its vector is the right-wing conspiracy theorist coming out with a new book.

    The authors of this article claim that their story only used Schweizer's book as a springboard for their own hard reporting. I'm curious to read the critiques of this article when it's had time to be digested.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 10:12 AM GMT
    Much ado about nothing.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 24, 2015 6:56 PM GMT
    credo saidMuch ado about nothing.


    Go ahead and keep wishing that.

    Meantime back in reality....

    "The Clinton Foundation disclosed just one $250,000 donation by Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer in 2007. But the article notes that Telfer used a family charity, the Fernwood Foundation, to make $2.35 million more in donations from 2009 to 2012."

    "Up to $5.6 million more in donations to the foundation came from executives with ties to Uranium One or a company it had acquired. After the deal was complete, a Russian bank with Kremlin ties paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-foundation-millions-tied-uranium-report-article-1.2197173

    Here's a link to the graphic.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 8:42 PM GMT

    You wingnuts are so hungry for fresh meat that you fail to accept political reality.

    Only the rabid base of Republican voters cares about this news; the base that would vote against any Democrat for any reason, regardless of the 'scandal'.

    For the rest of the voting public (what I like to call the real world), this non-bombshell of a story will be dead and buried within the next couple of months, if not sooner.

    Like Benghazi, the GOP lineup of presidential wannabes will try to whip this story into a frothy mix of lies and hearsay that they'll continue to feed to their angry, old, white constituents for the remainder of the cycle. And, of course, we can all look forward to watching them eat their own in the coming weeks.

    I love this s**t. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 8:56 PM GMT
    credo said
    You wingnuts are so hungry for fresh meat that you fail to accept political reality.

    Only the rabid base of Republican voters cares about this news; the base that would vote against any Democrat for any reason, regardless of the 'scandal'.

    For the rest of the voting public (what I like to call the real world), this non-bombshell of a story will be dead and buried within the next couple of months, if not sooner.

    Like Benghazi, the GOP lineup of presidential wannabes will try to whip this story into a frothy mix of lies and hearsay that they'll continue to feed to their angry, old, white constituents for the remainder of the cycle. And, of course, we can all look forward to watching them eat their own in the coming weeks.

    I love this s**t. icon_lol.gif

    I know, right? They always fondly imagine that each of their fake scandals will be the "game-changer". But they never are because no one except the hopelessly addled even give a shit about this silly fuckery, and those people were either voting Republican or possibly writing in some extraterrestrial (perhaps from Kolob).
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 24, 2015 9:12 PM GMT
    Clinton is powerful and has her fingers in many pots, that there's an appearance of impropriety is nothing new. What matters is whether there was, in fact, impropriety. And there is ZERO evidence of that.

    This "scandal" making reminds me of people who argue Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves anytime they arguably have an interest in the case. Scalia and Ginsburg have telegraphed how they feel about homosexual marriage, that is not grounds for recusal at the Supreme Court level. Supreme Court Justices have their fingers in many pots, and often express views on pending or as-yet filed cases. Until there is actual conflict (usually in the form of owning stock in a company), this is much ado about nothing.

    Go back to Benghazi, please.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 24, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    Jeeeeeeeeez you guys sound like you paid leftist hacks sent to spread propaganda in forums. I mean all three of you are quoting the David Brock handbook on being paid hacks.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 24, 2015 10:33 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidJeeeeeeeeez you guys sound like you paid leftist hacks sent to spread propaganda in forums. I mean all three of you are quoting the David Brock handbook on being paid hacks.


    LOL, they couldn't afford my rate. Me being a paid hack, would be akin to a doctor closing his practice so he could flip burgers to "make money." Talk about undercutting oneself.

    At any rate SouthBeach, I mean Bob3, this is much ado about nothing. It's merely the APPEARANCe of impropriety, and not a single piece of evidence has shown an ACTUAL impropriety.

    Keep fishing by all means.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2015 11:37 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidJeeeeeeeeez you guys sound like you paid leftist hacks sent to spread propaganda in forums. I mean all three of you are quoting the David Brock handbook on being paid hacks.

    They are sounding pretty shrill and desperate as even the normally friendly to the left media outlets are raising serious questions - e.g. NY Times and MSNBC.

    Even aside from all the revelations coming out, the fact remains that she conspired with key aids at the start of her tenure to use personal email accounts, then destroyed the possible evidence when asked to have a neutral arbitrator separate out the personal emails. Even her "convenience" claim was a lie because that had nothing to do with conspiring with key aids, and also she carried more than one device.

    With all that, especially destroying possible evidence, her supporters would ask that she be given the benefit of the doubt. Laughable. Even before all this, the Quin poll found voters in swing states found her untrustworthy.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 24, 2015 11:52 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob saidJeeeeeeeeez you guys sound like you paid leftist hacks sent to spread propaganda in forums. I mean all three of you are quoting the David Brock handbook on being paid hacks.

    They are sounding pretty shrill and desperate as even the normally friendly to the left media outlets are raising serious questions - e.g. NY Times and MSNBC.

    Even aside from all the revelations coming out, the fact remains that she conspired with key aids at the start of her tenure to use personal email accounts, then destroyed the possible evidence when asked to have a neutral arbitrator separate out the personal emails. Even her "convenience" claim was a lie because that had nothing to do with conspiring with key aids, and also she carried more than one device.

    With all that, especially destroying possible evidence, her supporters would ask that she be given the benefit of the doubt. Laughable. Even before all this, the Quin poll found voters in swing states found her untrustworthy.


    Something also to keep in mind: As Secy of State, she had to sign a document vowing to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety. Well, so much for that! icon_lol.gif


    AND... in regards to this uranium deal ... she was warned by high advisors in the State Department to avoid it and she still continued...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2015 12:02 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    southbeach1500 said
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob saidJeeeeeeeeez you guys sound like you paid leftist hacks sent to spread propaganda in forums. I mean all three of you are quoting the David Brock handbook on being paid hacks.

    They are sounding pretty shrill and desperate as even the normally friendly to the left media outlets are raising serious questions - e.g. NY Times and MSNBC.

    Even aside from all the revelations coming out, the fact remains that she conspired with key aids at the start of her tenure to use personal email accounts, then destroyed the possible evidence when asked to have a neutral arbitrator separate out the personal emails. Even her "convenience" claim was a lie because that had nothing to do with conspiring with key aids, and also she carried more than one device.

    With all that, especially destroying possible evidence, her supporters would ask that she be given the benefit of the doubt. Laughable. Even before all this, the Quin poll found voters in swing states found her untrustworthy.


    Something also to keep in mind: As Secy of State, she had to sign a document vowing to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety. Well, so much for that! icon_lol.gif


    AND... in regards to this uranium deal ... she was warned by high advisors in the State Department to avoid it and she still continued...

    Also appears she failed to disclose to the White House these "deals" despite an agreement that she would. Right now they (Josh Earnest) is trying to deflect questions, but it will be interesting if they finally decide to tell the truth which could amount to throwing her under the bus.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 25, 2015 12:06 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob said
    southbeach1500 said
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob saidJeeeeeeeeez you guys sound like you paid leftist hacks sent to spread propaganda in forums. I mean all three of you are quoting the David Brock handbook on being paid hacks.

    They are sounding pretty shrill and desperate as even the normally friendly to the left media outlets are raising serious questions - e.g. NY Times and MSNBC.

    Even aside from all the revelations coming out, the fact remains that she conspired with key aids at the start of her tenure to use personal email accounts, then destroyed the possible evidence when asked to have a neutral arbitrator separate out the personal emails. Even her "convenience" claim was a lie because that had nothing to do with conspiring with key aids, and also she carried more than one device.

    With all that, especially destroying possible evidence, her supporters would ask that she be given the benefit of the doubt. Laughable. Even before all this, the Quin poll found voters in swing states found her untrustworthy.


    Something also to keep in mind: As Secy of State, she had to sign a document vowing to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety. Well, so much for that! icon_lol.gif


    AND... in regards to this uranium deal ... she was warned by high advisors in the State Department to avoid it and she still continued...

    Also appears she failed to disclose to the White House these "deals" despite an agreement that she would. Right now they (Josh Earnest) is trying to deflect questions, but it will be interesting if they finally decide to tell the truth which could amount to throwing her under the bus.


    THATS RIGHT!!!! I've forgotten all about reading that last night. SHE DID NOT let the white house know anything about this shit!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2015 1:05 AM GMT
    It's interesting how the far-left zealots here say it's much ado about nothing and the non-story will go away. Well, the NY Times editorial board, their normal "newspaper of record" strongly disagrees:

    Excerpts:

    A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property. Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

    The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.

    The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign — the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
    ...
    The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
    ...
    These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 25, 2015 1:48 AM GMT
    credo said
    You wingnuts are so hungry for fresh meat that you fail to accept political reality.

    Only the rabid base of Republican voters cares about this news; the base that would vote against any Democrat for any reason, regardless of the 'scandal'.

    For the rest of the voting public (what I like to call the real world), this non-bombshell of a story will be dead and buried within the next couple of months, if not sooner.

    Like Benghazi, the GOP lineup of presidential wannabes will try to whip this story into a frothy mix of lies and hearsay that they'll continue to feed to their angry, old, white constituents for the remainder of the cycle. And, of course, we can all look forward to watching them eat their own in the coming weeks.

    I love this s**t. icon_lol.gif
    You extremist liberal hens are so stupid and wet behind the ears that it is well beyond pathetic. You all keep being blind sycophants to the hapless Hillary ho.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Apr 25, 2015 1:50 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidClinton is powerful and has her fingers in many pots, that there's an appearance of impropriety is nothing new. What matters is whether there was, in fact, impropriety. And there is ZERO evidence of that.

    This "scandal" making reminds me of people who argue Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves anytime they arguably have an interest in the case. Scalia and Ginsburg have telegraphed how they feel about homosexual marriage, that is not grounds for recusal at the Supreme Court level. Supreme Court Justices have their fingers in many pots, and often express views on pending or as-yet filed cases. Until there is actual conflict (usually in the form of owning stock in a company), this is much ado about nothing.

    Go back to Benghazi, please.
    In your dreams bozo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2015 3:25 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    credo said
    You wingnuts are so hungry for fresh meat that you fail to accept political reality.

    Only the rabid base of Republican voters cares about this news; the base that would vote against any Democrat for any reason, regardless of the 'scandal'.

    For the rest of the voting public (what I like to call the real world), this non-bombshell of a story will be dead and buried within the next couple of months, if not sooner.

    Like Benghazi, the GOP lineup of presidential wannabes will try to whip this story into a frothy mix of lies and hearsay that they'll continue to feed to their angry, old, white constituents for the remainder of the cycle. And, of course, we can all look forward to watching them eat their own in the coming weeks.

    I love this s**t. icon_lol.gif
    You extremist liberal hens are so stupid and wet behind the ears that it is well beyond pathetic. You all keep being blind sycophants to the hapless Hillary ho.


    "regardless of the 'scandal'"

    Sure seems to be plenty to choose from.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2015 6:26 AM GMT
    This is some funny shit.
    I'll repeat this, since none of you seem to be getting it:

    THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THIS ARE PEOPLE WHO WERE NEVER VOTING FOR HILLARY ANYWAY.

    Did it make it through this time?