PDA

View Full Version : Heard About That Book Regarding Hillary's Foundation?



Kathianne
04-23-2015, 11:56 AM
I thought I'd written on it week or so ago, if so I can't find it. Anyways, NYT, WaPo, and FOX have exclusive rights to work from anything in the book and report. NYT has started, oh boy have they started! Don't fail to notice Reuters playing off of at the end!


The OP was dancing around the reaction to this book:


How foreign cash made Bill and Hillary | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2015/04/20/book-claims-foreign-cash-made-bill-and-hillary-filthy-rich/)


“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich"


I read about it's release a couple weeks ago, I guess that may have helped move her 'announcement date' up. David Brock has been sent to sic (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/david-brock-warpath-against-anti-hillary-clinton-book-117178.html) on response to it, that doesn't bode well.




Not well at all:


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



Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company
By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIREAPRIL 23, 2015


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.


...


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.


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.


...


The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.


Advertisement


Continue reading the main story
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.


In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said 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.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “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 added.


American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.


...


Undisclosed Donations


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.


...


One hour ago, Reuters:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/23/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423



Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:51am EDT Related: U.S., POLITICS
Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors
NEW YORK | BY JONATHAN ALLEN


...

Kathianne
04-23-2015, 12:02 PM
Oh, the book...

Next on his writing, Jeb:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-23/clinton-cash-author-is-targeting-jeb-bush-next


Clinton Cash Author Is Targeting Jeb Bush Next

The past week can’t have been very pleasant for Peter Schweizer. On Sunday, the New York Times revealed (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html) that his forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, was roiling the political world—“the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy,” as the Times put it.

That landed Schweizer squarely in the crosshairs of the Clinton team and allied liberal groups, which have launched a campaign to discredit Schweizer (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209) as “disreputable” and blinded by partisan animosity. Anyone familiar with Schweizer’s work knows better: he wrote a well-regarded book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Bushes-Portrait-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0385498640) about the Bush dynasty and another, detailing insider trading in Congress (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0547573146/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687442&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0385498640&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1S13HKV9VH63XSSS8R8Q), that led to a new law, the bipartisan STOCK Act of 2012, which aims to curb these abuses.

That hasn’t quieted the left-wing clamor that Schweizer is simply out to get Hillary Clinton. But maybe this will: Schweizer is working on a similar investigation of Jeb Bush’s finances that he expects to publish this summer.

...

As he did with the Clinton book, Schweizer is hoping to partner with media organizations interested in reporting on and advancing his examination of Bush’s finances—an arrangement Schweizer feels has been mischaracterized in the media. “With the Clinton book, we didn’t just give it to reporters with the expectation that they would report on the book,” he says. “We shared it early on with investigative reporters at ABC, the New York Times, and theWashington Post because we wanted that additional scrutiny [of the book’s subjects]. And we want similar scrutiny for this project.”

Schweizer also wanted to rebut the implication that he may have been paid by news organizations (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34501/the-death-of-political-journalism/) for an early look at the book. “There was absolutely no money that changed hands,” he says. “It’s ridiculous to suggest so. “

On May 5, Clinton Cash will finally hit bookstore shelves and people will be able to form their own judgments. By then, Schweizer will no doubt be very busy, fending off attacks not just from Clintonites, but from Bushies, too.

<time datetime="2015-04-23T09:30:03.466Z" itemprop="datePublished" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Apr 23, 2015 2:30 AM MST</time>

Kathianne
04-23-2015, 12:11 PM
Oh my! I'm hating that I have to go to work soon!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html


The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency

By Jonathan Chait (http://nymag.com/author/Jonathan%20Chait/)<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" role="presentation" width="20" height="16" viewBox="0 0 20 16" preserveAspectRatio="xMinYMin meet"></svg>
(http://twitter.com/jonathanchait)

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:



The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share) has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-clintons-speech-income-shows-how-their-wealth-is-intertwined-with-charity/2015/04/22/12709ec0-dc8d-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html) reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563476) reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 (http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ace/) corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”

And Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423?irpc=932) reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”


The Clinton campaign is batting down (http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-04-23/MEMO-Clinton-Cash-Claims.pdf) the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

...

Kathianne
04-23-2015, 12:17 PM
OMG! It could effect fund-raising! Think she'll even reach 1/2 her goal of $2B?


Book blowback hits Clinton’s NYC donor kick-off - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-new-york-city-donor-kick-off-117281.html)

jimnyc
04-23-2015, 01:31 PM
I read about this and Shrillary this morning. Someone needs to work FT out there to keep pounding the public with the truth about her, finances, shenanigans & criminal activities.