Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Clinton Foundation becoming radioactive

Clinton Foundation becoming radioactive

How Russia expanded control of uranium production

They New York Times dropped a bomb. More like a daisy cutter, actually.

The NYT’s latest exposé into the sordid world of the Clinton family suggests a direct connection between the Clinton Foundation, Russian donations (that were not publicly disclosed), and the Russian acquisition of Uranium One. The events transpired while Mrs. Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

Point for Rand Paul who publicly predicted new, potentially disastrous revelations about the Clinton Foundation just weeks ago.

The dots connected in the NYT story, links reportedly included in the upcoming book, “Clinton Cash”, might be the most serious allegations in the litany of Clinton-family misdeeds thus far.

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.

Coincidence, right?

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.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

The article discusses the subsequent geopolitical ramifications of the deal, and boy is it nasty.

But back to Hillary’s role and the Clinton Foundation.

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on her husband’s foundation’s activities. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011; and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakhstan mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

The plot only thickens.

Evidently, Clinton officials lied to a NYT reporter about an investor meeting that took place at the Clinton’s home, prior to the Russian acquisition of Uranium One. When Clinton officials were confronted with photographic evidence, they changed their story:

The Clintons are swatting back against the Uranium One, Russia, (UraniumGate?) allegations, but in a non-traditional way, because you know, Hills is like, so mod and edgy:

Nailed it:

And once again, access to Hillary’s private servers becomes increasingly crucial to the public’s ability to reach the truth.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

… but hey, just because the Clintons forgot to mention this $2.35 million is no reason to believe that there is corruption afoot … it can all be easily explained as Alzheimer’s disease.

I guess those discussions into the 25th Amendment will begin sooner than we all thought.

Bad press is the least of the Clinton’s problems. Looks more and more like Hillary Clinton is going to be begging Valerie Jarrett for a presidential pardon before Obama officially vacates the White House.

GeorgeCrosley | April 23, 2015 at 5:47 pm

Kemberlee, you have a couple of misplaced apostrophes in your piece here. Should be “at the Clintons’ [plural possessive] home,” and “the Clintons [no apostrophe in the nominative plural] are swatting back.”

Clinton’s are traitors.
Would any of this come up in their lifetime if not for Hillary running?

You consider the Clinton Foundation, you think about the State Department — Benghazi, the courting of the Muslim Brotherhood, the secret, unlawful email system, the foreign money pouring into Clinton coffers while Mrs. Clinton was making key decisions about American foreign policy — and you naturally ask yourself:

What has Hillary Clinton ever run that did not turn into a debacle?
—Andy McCarthy

Not. One. Damn. Thing.

No wonder the “cankled one” in a black pantsuit resorted to a personal email server next to the washing machine.

I suppose the article is the first time obama has heard about it too.

“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”
_____________________________

How long before some reporter asks Hillary to explain the top 3 reasons why she decided that giving Russia the Kazakhstan mines, plus control of 1/5 of our domestic uranium production, was in the best strategic interests of the United States?

Hahahaha. Just kidding. We all know they won’t dare ask. But it’s fun to think about it, if only to time the length of the awkward pause that would follow the question, while Hillary desperately tried to come up with some blather to fill the silence.

It would be far better to bring this stuff up AFTER she is the official nominee and they are stuck with her. Otherwise we are liable to have to learn to say, “President Warren”.

    randian in reply to Anchovy. | April 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    That’s why it’s being brought up now. If Hilary becomes the Democrat nominee they’ll say this stuff is old and irrelevant news when the election draws near.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Anchovy. | April 23, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    Better for Pubs, independents and the country, yes.

    Better for the Dems, no. The NYT is flocking this now to get Hillary out of there and make room for Elizabeth Warren.

    Then you’ll see the NYT circle the wagons (bad Indian joke there) in ways that would make Walter Duranty proud.

Then there is the tax angle. It has now been learned that the Clintons are redoing all of their foundation tax forms to show all of the illegal donations. Where was Lois Lerner and Eric Holder on this deal? Oh that’s right, they were busy targeting conservative and TEA party organizations to be bothered by trivial matters pertaining to the Hildabeast and her shenanigans.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Stan25. | April 26, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    They had to redo them, because there were some foreign contributions mentioned on the Clinton Foundations’s web site, that weren’t on their tax returns – but the books of the Clinton Foundation are apparently a mess, anyway.

    (The tax returns are public, by law)

    They brought Chelsea into the foundation, and renamed it, because there were so many obvious problems.

stevewhitemd | April 23, 2015 at 9:00 pm

But as Ace of Spades points out, she was bribe-able only because she likes money.

Boom!

Treason seems to be SOP for present and former members of this administration.

We can Hillary and Bill Clinton treasonous, thieving scum. But that would be insulting to traitors, thieves and scum.

Sammy Finkelman | April 24, 2015 at 9:56 am

During the Clinton Administration, (and before and after) the U.S. negitiated a deal with Russia whereby we would buy many of their old nuclear weapons for their uranium. This was known as the Nunn-Lugar program.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_12/Looking-Back_The-US-Russian-Uranium-Deal-Results-and-Lessons

In February 1993, Russia and the United States signed an agreement on the disposition of highly enriched uranium (HEU) extracted from Russian nuclear weapons.[1] Under the terms of the deal, Russia undertook to down-blend 500 tons[2] of HEU, enough to build 20,000 nuclear warheads, over a 20-year period. The two sides agreed that the resulting low-enriched uranium (LEU) would be used as fuel by nuclear power plants in the United States, hence the informal name of the program, “Megatons to Megawatts.”

Putin has now stopped that and he seems to be interested now in acquiring uranium,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

The Megatons to Megawatts program was initiated in 1993 and successfully completed in December 2013. A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (high enriched uranium, equivalent to 20,008 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU (low enriched uranium) and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants. During the 20-year Megatons to Megawatts program, as much as 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States was generated by fuel fabricated using LEU from Russian HEU. [6]

Sammy Finkelman | April 24, 2015 at 10:01 am

http://thebulletin.org/more-megatons-megawatts

USEC, the only American company in the uranium enrichment business, made a profit on the Megatons to Megawatts program. The company won’t finish building its last fuel assemblies from Russian uranium until 2017, and this inventory is expected to last until 2020. Nevertheless, the company announced in December [2013] that it plans to file for bankruptcy in early 2014.

I literally pray that this whole debacle about the Clinton Foundation totally blows up and ENDS any and all prospects of Hillary Clinton ever becoming the President of the United States.

What will happen with all of Hillary’s emails copied by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies? Will they use them to blackmail her if she wins the presidency? Or will the use them to ensue she loses the presidency?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend