Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Branco Cartoon – Presumed Guilty

Branco Cartoon – Presumed Guilty

Until proven innocent

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source.
For more A.F.Branco cartoons at Legal Insurrection click here

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

But, but, but….

We don’t *know* that they don’t have any evidence, because it’s an ongoing investigation and they might be keeping the best evidence secret!

(Awesome cartoon. One of your best.)

Yes. Great cartoon!

Good cartoon, making an excellent point, but slightly marred by the reference to the “uranium deal”, which is complete fiction. The facts are:

1. The US did not sell any uranium to anyone. A Russian company bought a majority of the shares in a Canadian company that owns some mines in the US.

2. Under US law this deal needed 0bama’s approval, or else they’d have to sell the US mines. It did not need the Clinton’s approval, and she had no role whatsoever in this.

3. The president does have a nine-member committee to advise him on such decisions, and the state department has one representative on that committee. In principle, the most Clinton could have done to advance this deal would be to talk to her representative on the committee and ask him to vote to recommend approval. But (a) She’d have had to give him some sort of explanation, especially if he’d been previously inclined to oppose it; (b) He says she never once spoke to him about his role on this committee, and there’s no evidence she even knew it existed or that he was on it; (c) even if she’d told him to vote for approval, and he’d done so, that would only be one vote out of nine, for a recommendation that 0bama could easily have ignored. If someone really wanted to buy approval for the deal it would have made no sense to bribe Clinton. They’d be better off bribing 0bama himself, or at least bribing five of the committee members directly.

4. In any case, while this deal was pending the Clinton Foundation got no unusual donations from anyone connected with it. The only person connected in any way with the deal who gave any money was the Canadian chairman of the company being taken over, and the $250K he gave was actually less than he gave in other years, both before and after. So even if it had made sense to bribe her, there was no bribe.

    Really?

    Read this:

    Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

    That’s the “deal” that Donald Trump referenced in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he essentially said that if Congress really wants to find evidence of U.S. politicians colluding with the Russians, it should investigate the $145 million in donations the Clintons’ received from uranium investors before Russia’s energy agency Rostatom secured the purchase of Uranium One.
    The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies – and its plausible connection to major donations to the Clinton Foundation was exposed by author Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash and confirmed in a 3,000 word, front-page story by the New York Times.

    Former Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer was among several individuals connected to the deal who made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Telfer made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million, the Times reported.

    The donations flowed as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. Snopes and other “fact checkers” who insist there was no quid pro quo have argued that most of the donations were made in 2008, before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. But she was running for president at that time.

    The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.

    Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    In June 2010, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton personally received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a Kremlin-tied Russian investment bank connected to the uranium deal.
    The Times pointed out that the Canadian tax records show the contributions to the Clinton Foundation were not publicly disclosed, which violated an agreement Clinton signed with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state to disclose all foreign donations.

    Meanwhile, the Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group reported last week Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, John Podesta, may have opened himself up to a Russian “influence campaign” designed to temper his views of the Kremlin. Podesta possibly violated federal law when he failed to fully disclose his membership on the executive board of an energy company that accepted millions from a Vladimir Putin-connected Russian government fund.
    After Rostatom finally secured 100 percent of Uranium One in 2013, the Russian-government news website Pravda declared: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
    Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin

    Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin

    The acquisition of uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain, the New York Times said.

    In an interview after the U.S. government approved the deal, Putin sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko.

    “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Kiriyenko told Putin.

    The agreement came as the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, famously was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia.

    Because uranium is considered a strategic asset that has implications for national security, the agreement had to be approved by a panel of representatives from a number of United States government agencies, including the State Department.

    The Times noted that both Rosatom and the U.S. government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians, but the promises were repeatedly broken.

    The Times commented that while it can’t be proved that the donations had a direct impact on the approval of the uranium deal, “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.”

    When the Times prepared its story during the 2016 election campaign, it obtained a statement from Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon, who insisted no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

    Fallon argued that the Canadian government and other U.S. agencies also had to sign off on the deal.

    “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he said.

    The appearance of undue influence, however, prompted the Clinton Foundation to announce changes, including limiting donations from foreign governments and barring Russia from giving to all but its health care initiatives.

    But the Times noted the foundation continued to “accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.”

    The Times got insight into the significance of the deal from Michael McFaul, who served under Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to Russia.

    “Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” he said.

    “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

    Bill Clinton at his side

    Russia’s acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where Canadian mining financier Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal.
    Bill Clinton, strategically, was at his side, the Times noted.

    “Clinton Cash” author Schweitzer explained the importance of Clinton’s role, in an interview with Breitbart News Daily in March 2016.

    Giustra had wanted a large uranium concession in Kazakhstan but had never been able to get it from the country’s repressive dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

    “Bill Clinton shows up, declares at a press conference that Nazarbayev is a wonderful leader, should actually lead an international human rights organization,” Schweizer said. “And lo and behold, a couple of days later, Nazarbayev gives Frank Giustra this uranium concession.

    “A few weeks after that, Bill Clinton’s Clinton Foundation gets more than $30 million from Frank Giustra.”

    The Times noted Bill Clinton undercut “American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.”

    Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal with Kazakhstan giving the company stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

    UrAsia merged in 2007 with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, which soon began purchasing companies with assets in the United States.

    By June 2009, Uranium One’s stock had dropped 40 percent, but Russia, lacking domestic uranium reserves, was eyeing a stake in the company.

    That’s when Uranium One pressed the U.S. Embassy in Kazakhstan, which was under Hillary Clinton’s authority, to talk with Kazakh officials about clearing the way for a deal.

    American cables show the U.S. Embassy energy officer met with Kazakh officials, and three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One.

    Within a year, Russia sought a 51 percent controlling stake.

    The only obstacle to the deal was that the U.S. government, namely the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, had to sign off on it.

    The Times pointed out that when a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington. Officials were worried about the mine’s proximity to a military installation and the possibility that minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control.

    The U.S. officials killed the deal.

    Schweizer pointed out that when the Uranium One deal was under way, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” took place.

    “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

    The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation but about American dependence on foreign uranium sources.

    While the U.S. gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only about 20 percent of the uranium it needs, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

    “The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” Katusa told the Times. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

    A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, told the Times that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence:

    “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”

    Two months later, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began its review.

    Did the committee weigh the U.S. desire to improve bilateral relations with Russia against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States?

    That information has never been disclosed, but the deal was approved in October after, the Times said, citing two people involved, “a relatively smooth process.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/russia-scandal-inside-the-obama-clinton-uranium-deal/

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to TheFineReport.com. | May 15, 2017 at 1:35 pm

      Touche!

      Milhouse in reply to TheFineReport.com. | May 15, 2017 at 4:19 pm

      Really?

      Yes, really.

      Read this:

      From my original comment you can tell I’d heard your pack of lies before. They remain lies.

      Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

      There’s not a word of truth in that.

      The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies

      No, it didn’t. Already covered in what I wrote above. Try reading it.

      Former Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer was among several individuals connected to the deal who made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Telfer made four foreign donations totaling $2.35 million, the Times reported.

      While this deal was pending Telfer donated $250K, not $2.35M. Nobody else involved donated even one cent. The fact that Telfer was a regular donor is evidence against this crazy bribery theory, not for it. He gave the Foundation huge sums when he had nothing to gain from it, and his donations when this deal was pending were lower than average, not higher. That’s the exact opposite of bribery.

      The donations flowed as the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. Snopes and other “fact checkers” who insist there was no quid pro quo have argued that most of the donations were made in 2008, before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. But she was running for president at that time.

      So what? The Rosatom bid for Uranium One was not pending at the time, so there was nothing for her to approve had she been elected.

      The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.

      No, it doesn’t. (1) Rosatom was not trying to buy the company at that time. (2) It wasn’t even Canadian at the time, it was South African. (3) The ownership of mines in Kazakhstan is obviously none of the USA’s business and doesn’t require the US president’s approval.

      Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

      Which is completely irrelevant, since Giustra sold out of the company in 2007, not only long before Rosatom made its bid, but long before it had any US interests.

      In June 2010, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,

      Aha, an open acknowledgement of the start date of this issue. Therefore nothing before that date can possibly have any relevance, which makes you a liar out of your own mouth.

      Bill Clinton personally received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a Kremlin-tied Russian investment bank connected to the uranium deal.

      Which bank, and what was its connection to the deal? Without that information the allegation is meaningless. Even if true, though, it’s irrelevant because Hillary had no control over approval. If someone connected with the deal had actually wanted to buy approval the person to bribe would have been 0bama, or someone close to him. If they wanted for some reason to buy the advisory committee’s recommendation for approval the people to bribe would have been any five members of the committee, not Clinton, who wasn’t on the committee and never showed any awareness that the committee even existed, or that her department had someone on it.

      The Times pointed out that the Canadian tax records show the contributions to the Clinton Foundation were not publicly disclosed, which violated an agreement Clinton signed with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state to disclose all foreign donations.

      True, but so what? How does it support this made-up uranium story?

      UrAsia merged in 2007 with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, which soon began purchasing companies with assets in the United States.

      More acknowledgment of how full of sh*t you are. Note well, at the time of the merger (and Giustra’s departure) neither UrAsia nor Uranium One had any US interests. Therefore Giustra could not even have anticipated one day needing a favor from the US president, and his donations to the Clinton Foundation could not possibly be connected with any such need.

      Schweizer pointed out that when the Uranium One deal was under way, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” took place. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.

      No, they didn’t. Only Telfer gave anything at that time, and he gave less than he’d been giving before any of this happened.

      The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation but about American dependence on foreign uranium sources.

      That’s too ridiculous for words. Even you can’t be stupid enough to believe that. The mines remain in the US, of course. How could US dependence have been affected by whether they were owned by Canadians or Russians?

      Note also that it’s not as if 0bama could have prevented the deal; if he had not approved it the deal would have gone ahead anyway, but the company would have had to sell its US mines.

      http://www.wnd.com

      Aha. Now I know where you’re getting this sh*t from. Joseph Farah? Really? Of all the lying scumbags in the world that’s who you’re turning to for information? No wonder you’re so ignorant.

kenoshamarge | May 15, 2017 at 9:25 am

Right on target, as usual. Love the Branco cartoons!

Yep, one of your best Mr. Branco!

Thank you for all your kudos on this one. the media seem to be in lockstep toward destroying the trump presidency truth be damned.

    amwick in reply to A.F. Branco. | May 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    Not if you keep this up! If the pen is mightier than the sword, a good cartoon is a media MOAB. It gets people’s attention.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend