• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Alright, 3rd time is a charm....clearly some on here don't want a thread about Hillary to be discussed in BN, but tough crap....It's dominating the news cycle right now....Can't just ignore it....
 
I wonder how many of those emails she deleted were related to this deal. Kinda looks like Hillary was pimping her SoS office for Clinton foundation donations.

No wonder so many of her supporters don't want to talk about it, and probably wish this would just go away.
 
  • Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
  • Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.


NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times' Story Based On Clinton Cash "Doesn't Hold Up That Well," Here's Why | Blog | Media Matters for America
 
j-mac said:
Alright, 3rd time is a charm....clearly some on here don't want a thread about Hillary to be discussed in BN, but tough crap....It's dominating the news cycle right now....Can't just ignore it....
Click to expand...

Somehow, I just can't visualize Hillary Clinton becoming president. I keep thinking someone else is going to stand up . For awhile I thought Jim Webb may step in but time is slipping away on him. I then looked at the possibility of Rand Paul but the more I listened the more he became a typical politician.

The number of these Clinton threads just shows how terrified the Repubs are of her because at this point they don't have a slam dunk answer to her.
 
LOL. Everyone like snipers with Hillary in their reticle.
 
Crosscheck said:
Somehow, I just can't visualize Hillary Clinton becoming president. I keep thinking someone else is going to stand up . For awhile I thought Jim Webb may step in but time is slipping away on him. I then looked at the possibility of Rand Paul but the more I listened the more he became a typical politician.

The number of these Clinton threads just shows how terrified the Repubs are of her because at this point they don't have a slam dunk answer to her.
Click to expand...

The number? Other than American's on here, I don't see another one but this one...And I am not terrified as much as I am stunned that anyone, including demo's at this point would think that Clinton is a good choice....Hell, I say please run her....She will be eviscerated....
 
pbrauer said:
  • Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
  • Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.


NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times' Story Based On Clinton Cash "Doesn't Hold Up That Well," Here's Why | Blog | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

You'll never learn... You will worship those clowns over at Media Matters until the day you die, no matter how many time they make a complete fool out of you.
 
Grim17 said:
You'll never learn... You will worship those clowns over at Media Matters until the day you die, no matter how many time they make a complete fool out of you.
Click to expand...

Are they wrong? If you think so, then prove it. Did you follow the embedded links?

Edit: The link is their waiting for you to tear it apart! Ready...Set...Go. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
The number? Other than American's on here, I don't see another one but this one...And I am not terrified as much as I am stunned that anyone, including demo's at this point would think that Clinton is a good choice....Hell, I say please run her....She will be eviscerated....
Click to expand...

For just a minute if we can just change two words in your sentence : " And I am not terrified as much as I am stunned that anyone, including Reps at this point would think that Palin is a good choice....Hell, I say please run her....She will be eviscerated. "

Nothing ever really changes just the actors.
 
pbrauer said:
  • Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.

  • Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.


NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times' Story Based On Clinton Cash "Doesn't Hold Up That Well," Here's Why | Blog | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace,” Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume said the charges laid out in the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash” “all smells” and is “pretty ugly.”
Hume said, “The smoking gun requirement would be what you’re looking for if you’re trying to prove a bribe, an outright bribe. But if the standard is even the appearance of a conflict of interest, he’s got all of that.”
Hume also commented on former President Bill Clinton’s skyrocketed speaking fees.
“These donations to the foundation from these foreign governments, many of them unsavory characters at the head of them, this all smells,” Hume said. “Now, can you prove that these were bribes? No. but can anybody reasonably infer these people were trying to buy influence? Of course. The Clintons seem oblivious to that possibility, or knowing of it, and figuring they can get away with it. Of course, you have the instances in which the reporting that was supposed to occur to make all this transparent it did not. You add it all up, it’s pretty ugly.”
Click to expand...
Hume: Hillary's Many Appearances of Conflicts of Interest 'Smells,' 'Pretty Ugly' - Breitbart

I guess, Pete, that you are all in favor of supporting a presidential candidate that's pretty ugly on all fronts. Well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess.

Makes me wonder if you'd just as easily accept an equal level of stink from a more conservative candidate that Media Matter is trying to character assassinate rather than to protect. My money is on that you wouldn't.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hume: Hillary's Many Appearances of Conflicts of Interest 'Smells,' 'Pretty Ugly' - Breitbart

I guess, Pete, that you are all in favor of supporting a presidential candidate that's pretty ugly on all fronts. Well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess.

Makes me wonder if you'd just as easily accept an equal level of stink from a more conservative candidate that Media Matter is trying to character assassinate rather than to protect. My money is on that you wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Did you watch Chris Wallace's interview of Peter Schweizer?
 
pbrauer said:
Did you watch Chris Wallace's interview of Peter Schweizer?
Click to expand...

I did. My take away was that he was raising reasonable questions as to conflict of interests and questionable money flow, which, if memory serves, your Media Matters article in defense didn't address at all, other than a timeline that I'm rather suspicious about.

I'm ambivalent about all this now, to the point that I want to see some court quality evidence for or against in support of these questions. Of course, given the present media reportage, I doubt that I'll see it. It's also without a doubt that you'll see that vindication that you seek, and also without a doubt that it'll remain remain less than convincing to others.

Frankly, if you are in high office, and seeking higher office, it would be reasonable to expect that you'd steer clear of any possible conflict of interest allegations (shouldn't the leader of the free world be above reproach? A position of strength?), but also inevitable, that the Clintons don't believe that they have to play by these rules.
 
eohrnberger said:
I did. My take away was that he was raising reasonable questions as to conflict of interests and questionable money flow, which, if memory serves, your Media Matters article in defense didn't address at all, other than a timeline that I'm rather suspicious about.

I'm ambivalent about all this now, to the point that I want to see some court quality evidence for or against in support of these questions. Of course, given the present media reportage, I doubt that I'll see it. It's also without a doubt that you'll see that vindication that you seek, and also without a doubt that it'll remain remain less than convincing to others.

Frankly, if you are in high office, and seeking higher office, it would be reasonable to expect that you'd steer clear of any possible conflict of interest allegations (shouldn't the leader of the free world be above reproach? A position of strength?), but also inevitable, that the Clintons don't believe that they have to play by these rules.
Click to expand...

Did you read the embedded links, timing is very important?
 
j-mac said:
Alright, 3rd time is a charm....clearly some on here don't want a thread about Hillary to be discussed in BN, but tough crap....It's dominating the news cycle right now....Can't just ignore it....
Click to expand...

With any luck, maybe she'll be finished before she starts.
 
Montecresto said:
With any luck, maybe she'll be finished before she starts.
Click to expand...

The one thing I wonder Monte, is if this isn't in some part coming also from the far left progressive wing trying to take Hillary out so that Warren can be conscripted.
 
Looks to me like a slush-fund under the guise of a charity.

There are two components to the Clinton Foundation, one is US based and the other is Canadian based. However, the component finances are so intermingled that they are essentially one entity. The donor rules are different in each country though. Clinton's promise of Foundation transparency apparently doesn't apply to the Canadian component. Of $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013, just $9 million went to charity work. This is far below the 75% rate that non-profit charities should spend on missions. $86 million went to "administrative costs" such as first-class air tickets for the Clinton's and the salary of the Foundation CEO Eric Braverman ... who is a friend of Chelsea's and both worked together at McKinsey & Co. Braverman left the Clinton Foundation earlier this year due to arguments about reforms he wanted to impose on the charity. He was replaced by Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton. The charity watchdog Charity Navigator placed the Clinton Foundation on its Watch List.

Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton gave 13 speeches which earned him $500,000 or more. 11 of those 13 speeches came after Hillary was SoS. The cynical among us might view this as influence peddling.

While the State Department headed by Hillary was involved with the uranium deal with Russia, investors in Uranium One gave millions to the Clinton Foundation. While his wife was US Secretary of State, Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in 2010 from a Russian bank (Renaissance Capital) with close ties to the Kremlin.

The Clinton Foundation received millions from Uranium One investers, Bill received $500,000 from a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin, and a Russian company now controls 20% of the US uranium market.

And "just providentially" we are asked to believe ... Hillary elected to delete all of her private emails spanning the time frame above.
 
Simpleχity;1064568042 said:
Looks to me like a slush-fund under the guise of a charity.

There are two components to the Clinton Foundation, one is US based and the other is Canadian based. However, the component finances are so intermingled that they are essentially one entity. The donor rules are different in each country though. Clinton's promise of Foundation transparency apparently doesn't apply to the Canadian component. Of $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013, just $9 million went to charity work. This is far below the 75% rate that non-profit charities should spend on missions. $86 million went to "administrative costs" such as first-class air tickets for the Clinton's and the salary of the Foundation CEO Eric Braverman ... who is a friend of Chelsea's and both worked together at McKinsey & Co. Braverman left the Clinton Foundation earlier this year due to arguments about reforms he wanted to impose on the charity. He was replaced by Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton. The charity watchdog Charity Navigator placed the Clinton Foundation on its Watch List.

Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton gave 13 speeches which earned him $500,000 or more. 11 of those 13 speeches came after Hillary was SoS. The cynical among us might view this as influence peddling.

While the State Department headed by Hillary was involved with the uranium deal with Russia, investors in Uranium One gave millions to the Clinton Foundation. While his wife was US Secretary of State, Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in 2010 from a Russian bank (Renaissance Capital) with close ties to the Kremlin.

The Clinton Foundation received millions from Uranium One investers, Bill received $500,000 from a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin, and a Russian company now controls 20% of the US uranium market.

And "just providentially" we are asked to believe ... Hillary elected to delete all of her private emails spanning the time frame above.
Click to expand...

Good summation there.

Yeah, it definitely doesn't look good. In fact, it looks really ugly. It looks corrupt, and smells of bribes and as you said, influence pedaling.

Given the politically and ideologically driven DOJ that we have, there'll never be any sort of investigation on this. Hill & Bill knew this to be the case when they did these things. As always, Hill & Bill push it right up to the edge of what they can get away with, disregarding both the spirit of law and letter of the law, as well as what best for anyone but themselves. They then have the gall to present themselves as some sort of public servants.

What utter BS they ply, and what utter BS their eager supports lap up.

One can only hope that their Karma will actually catch up with them one day.
 
j-mac said:
The one thing I wonder Monte, is if this isn't in some part coming also from the far left progressive wing trying to take Hillary out so that Warren can be conscripted.
Click to expand...

Maybe, I've no doubt such things happen within the internal workings of both parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom