The Clinton Foundation – The gifts that keep on giving – but not to you and me
It appears that the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, that has always had the Clintons in its cross-hairs, has a new member, The New York Times. Today’s article, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company,” pretty well is on its way to defining the Clinton Foundation as a pay to play, slush fund. Don’t you find it just one iota bit interesting that Bill and Hillary, who weren’t remotely wealthy when they entered the White House, are now worth in excess of $100 million dollars together. That’s a whole lotta speaking engagements, right? That’s some savvy investing, like cattle futures, right? Or is something else going on, which is the subject of Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book, “Clinton Cash“. In today’s National Journal article, Ron Fournier muses, “I haven’t read his book. But I do know what the Clintons are capable of.”
When Hillary erased all those emails on her server in Chappaqua, odds are increasing that those emails weren’t only about Benghazi. They were probably all too incriminating about the ties between Hillary’s tenure at the State Dept and the Clinton Foundation donors. Hillary, in her UN presser, admitted that she communicated with Bill via email.
Clinton Foundation theories aside, there’s something odd here. Both The Washington Post and The New York Times are both newspapers that are not known for their glowing coverage of Republican candidates, outside of the op-eds penned by Charles Krauthammer, Marc Thiessen and Jennifer Rubin. Yet they are both writing, and have written, some scathing pieces about Hillary. And now this Clinton Foundation piece is beginning to get legs, and causing enough worry within her campaign that the attack dogs/conspiracy theorists are coming out in her defense. Could it be that the NYT piece is just the tip of the iceberg and a subtle warning is being sent to Hillary to rethink her run for President? After all, what’s more important, financial security and the Secretary of State address, or ignominy.
In today’s article,
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.
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.
Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.
The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its annual investor conference.
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said 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?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.
To borrow a line from another Will, “there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.” But will Americans buy it in 2016, if Hill is still around?