Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(86,009 posts)
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 04:06 PM Apr 2015

NYT's own reporting undermines innuendo in their story about Hillary Clinton’s role in uranium deal

Hilary Rosen ?@hilaryr 44m44 minutes ago
‘Clinton Cash’ & NYT Fail to Prove Connection Between Clinton & Russian Purchase of Uranium…” by @brianefallon https://t.co/n1hW5ypk6f

The facts drawn from the Times’ own reporting:

1. The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department’s review of the sale to the Russians. While it is true that the State Department sits on the multi-agency, inter-governmental panel that reviews deals like this one, Hillary Clinton herself did not participate in the review or direct the Department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. This is consistent with past practice; historically, matters pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.) do not rise to the Secretary’s level. Rather, it is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs who serves as the State Department’s principal representative to C.F.I.U.S. The individual who held that post in 2010 was Jose Fernandez, and he has personally attested that then-Secretary Clinton never interfered with him, saying “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

2. The main Clinton Foundation donor that the Times suggests stood to gain from the sale of Uranium One to the Russians had actually sold his stake in the company three years earlier. In its article, the Times focuses on Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman and known philanthropist whose donations to the Clinton Foundation date back to 2005. It is true that Mr. Giustra was the owner of a predecessor firm to Uranium One, the company whose sale was being reviewed by C.F.I.U.S. But by the time of Uranium One’s proposed sale in 2010, Mr. Giustra no longer held a position with the company. In fact, as he told the Times, he had liquidated his stake in Uranium One entirely back in 2007 and thus had no reason to have sought any favor from Clinton’s State Department.

3. A second Clinton Foundation donor referenced in the Times has specifically said he never spoke to her about the deal. In addition to Mr. Giustra himself, the Times points to a second Clinton Foundation donor and longtime business associate of Mr. Giustra by the name of Ian Telfer. It is true that, unlike Mr. Giustra, Telfer — as the acting head of Uranium One in 2010 — had a financial interest in the company’s sale to the Russians. It is also true that he had previously donated to the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. But in a statement to the Times, Telfer told the paper he made the donations based on his wish to personally support Mr. Giustra in his charitable work, not based on any relationship to the Clintons. And most importantly, he told the Times that he never spoke to either President Clinton or then-Secretary Clinton about his company, Uranium One.

4. The Times fails to accurately describe the process, ignoring the fact that the State Department was just one of nine agencies involved in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One. In addition to the fact that Hillary Clinton herself did not have a role in the State Department’s review of the deal, the Department itself was just one player — and not even a major one — in the C.F.I.U.S. process. It is the Treasury Department that serves as the lead agency in all C.F.I.U.S. matters, and seven other U.S. agencies besides State — including the Departments of Justice, Energy and Commerce — sit on the panel. To the extent a deal like the sale of Uranium One could be said to raise any national security concerns, both the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security also sit on the panel, and would have been party to the overall approval. Moreover, the 2010 sale of Uranium One was approved by more than just C.F.I.U.S. It was also green-lighted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Utah Department of Radiation and the Canadian government. In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists affirmed that the deal did not raise national security concerns.

5. The Times ignores that U.S. regulators accepted a subsequent sale of the remaining stake in Uranium One to Russia after Clinton left the State Department. The 2010 sale at issue in the Times story involved the Russians purchasing a 51 percent stake in Uranium One. But nearly three years later, the company announced that the Russians would be increasing their ownership to 100 percent. The company notified U.S. regulators of this in late January 2013, giving those bodies the opportunity to subject the new transaction to a review. Both the NRC and C.F.I.U.S. declined to do so, which was tantamount to green-lighting the deal. Notably this acceptance of the Russians’ complete takeover of Uranium One came after Secretary Clinton exited the State Department.


read: https://t.co/n1hW5ypk6f
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT's own reporting undermines innuendo in their story about Hillary Clinton’s role in uranium deal (Original Post) bigtree Apr 2015 OP
K&R! hrmjustin Apr 2015 #1
Great details. For this story to work Hillary would need to be able to time travel. underpants Apr 2015 #2
+ 100000 Speaking to the absurdity of lies of the RW Fascists misterhighwasted Apr 2015 #3
Kicking. hrmjustin Apr 2015 #4
I actually laughed out loud when I read #2 n/t OKNancy Apr 2015 #5
» bigtree Apr 2015 #6
The Republicans want to destroy Hillary and the main stream press is carrying their water. DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #7
Shame on the NYT for pretending there is one sufrommich Apr 2015 #8
K & R Scurrilous Apr 2015 #9
» bigtree Apr 2015 #10
Great article on this issue Gothmog Apr 2015 #11
The New York Times: Can't be Trusted: They take money from the right wing liers lewebley3 Apr 2015 #12
DU rec...nt SidDithers Apr 2015 #13
Shhhh. Don't ruin a good circle jerk. NCTraveler Apr 2015 #14
Thank you for this post. Beacool Apr 2015 #15
It's about disclosure in that she didn't. AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #16
voluntary disclosures bigtree Apr 2015 #17
Allow me to add a few more DETAILS. cynzke Apr 2015 #18
Even if the Times corrects itself on this there's been a lot of irreversible damage groundloop Apr 2015 #19
depends on who their candidate is bigtree Apr 2015 #20
Yeah, rwingers.. they're easily swept up in fit of rage over Hillary or Pres Obama.. She never had Cha Apr 2015 #24
Thanks for this post- riversedge Apr 2015 #21
NYT's own JUDY MILLER is coming out with a book, too--talk about trying to rehabilitate crooks! MADem Apr 2015 #22
Yep. Crap on a cracker. Chow down. aquart Apr 2015 #23

misterhighwasted

(9,148 posts)
3. + 100000 Speaking to the absurdity of lies of the RW Fascists
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 04:41 PM
Apr 2015

Hillary must be one heck of a threat to the RW.
I wish her safe passage to the Oval Office 2016.

Those people give me chills as to how far they will go to keep Hillary Clinton from a 2016 win.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,716 posts)
7. The Republicans want to destroy Hillary and the main stream press is carrying their water.
Thu Apr 23, 2015, 07:44 PM
Apr 2015

Do you know why the latter doesn't give a flying shit?


Because their wealth, privilege, and status protect them from the consequences of Republican hegemony.


To Hell with them I say.

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
12. The New York Times: Can't be Trusted: They take money from the right wing liers
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 12:29 PM
Apr 2015


The New York times, botched the email stories about Hillary:
they leave facts out of stories to create stories that don't exist:

They are were the ones printed the Juith Miller lies that sent this country to
war and lies.

The New York Times is just not a reliable news source!!
 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
14. Shhhh. Don't ruin a good circle jerk.
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 12:37 PM
Apr 2015

And the names fawning over the original article were from those who claim to be from the anti-corporate anti-main stream media left of the party. Pretty transparent at this point.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
16. It's about disclosure in that she didn't.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:55 PM
Apr 2015
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. At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

bigtree

(86,009 posts)
17. voluntary disclosures
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 01:38 PM
Apr 2015

The Clinton Foundation announced that it would increase the frequency of its voluntary disclosure of donors from annual to quarterly, beginning in July.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/clinton-foundation-limits-foreign-donations-117028.html


...still a diversion from the main point of the story, which was that Clinton had influenced the uranium deal.

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
18. Allow me to add a few more DETAILS.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:51 PM
Apr 2015

During the initial deal by Canadian Mr. Guistra started in 2005, Hillary was a Senator and one of many against the deal. She had misgivings. It was CIFUS under the Bush Admin, that was considering whether to recommend allowing the deal. Remember when Bush wanted to let a foreign company contract to run US ports and all the upset that caused? Due to that nonsense, Congress passed the Foreign Investment National Security Act of 2007, which requires among other things, for CIFUS to periodically notify CONGRESS on their investigations. So the subsequent sale to Russians was under review by members of Congress. DID WE HEAR ANY COMPLAINTS THEN? Since Uranium One held assets and interests in multiple countries, the governments of these countries had to APPROVE the sales to the Russians as well. Richard Perle, serving under Regan told CBS during an interview, that most of CIFUS decisions were made at lower level agency staff levels. They didn't involve the heads of various departments. We are now part of a complex global market. Foreign investment is an important component to our economy. The Clintons are keen players in this market. Bill is an excellent communicator and organizer. What he does is promote global investment while encouraging corporations to consider using some of their wealth and profits to foster social issues and to donate their time and money to global charities. The Clinton Foundation through their donations, fosters health and economic growth in poor countries. The Clinton are smart and know how to play international financial hardball. They know how to motivate business into becoming socially responsible businesses. And they personally profit as well. Nothing wrong or illegal about that either. But now The GOP and right wing are going to try to smear the Clintons as greedy profiteers.

Bill Clinton acts as an IPA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_promotion_agency.

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

http://www.cfr.org/foreign-direct-investment/foreign-investment-us-national-security/p31477

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/12/giustra-clinton-kazakhstan-pf-ii-in_rl_0912croesus_inl.html

groundloop

(11,528 posts)
19. Even if the Times corrects itself on this there's been a lot of irreversible damage
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:19 PM
Apr 2015

For one thing it give right wingers more plausible sounding talking points. My boss is a very hard core right wing fanatic, he was raging on and on about this the other day. Some of the people at work don't pay much attention to politics, by listening to his rantings they've gotten the impression that Hillary and Bill directly influenced this deal and personally profited from it.

That's the way it always goes with right wing lies, a sexy sounding conspiracy theory comes out on Faux noise involving a prominent Democrat. The story spreads, some people believe it because it sounds factual, and Democrats waste a ton of time and resources trying to refute it (with only mixed results). The right-wing is very good at playing this game.

bigtree

(86,009 posts)
20. depends on who their candidate is
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:35 PM
Apr 2015

...Jeb Bush, for example, has real foreign money conflicts which can be traced directly to his bank account.

from 'Jeb Bush Speaks Up on Foreign Policy' article:

During his time as a governor, Florida was largely dependent on foreign trade, and Bush worked as a senior advisor at Barclays PLC, advising various banks from Europe to Asia. Both these factors helped him gain a better understanding of foreign markets. Another advantage is his investment partnership with a Chinese conglomerate, resulting in multiple visits during recent years.



from 'Jeb Bush Has a Mitt Romney Problem' article:

Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 27 list Bush as chairman and manager of a new offshore private equity fund, BH Global Aviation, which raised $61 million in September, largely from foreign ­investors. In November the fund ­incorporated in the United Kingdom and Wales­—a ­structure, several independent finance lawyers say, that operates like a tax haven by allowing overseas investors to avoid U.S. taxes and regulations.

BH Global Aviation is one of at least three such funds Bush has launched in less than two years through his Coral Gables, Fla., company, Britton Hill Holdings. He’s also chairman of a $26 million fund, BH Logistics, established in April with backing from a Chinese conglomerate, and a $40 million fund involved in shale oil exploration, according to documents filed in June and first ­reported on by Bloomberg News. His flurry of ventures doesn’t suggest someone preparing to run for president, according to a dozen fund managers, lawyers, and ­private-placement agents who were ­apprised of his recent activities by Bloomberg Businessweek. Most private equity funds have a life span of 10 years. While it isn’t impossible that Bush could bail on his investors so soon after taking their money, “that would be unusual,” says Steven Kaplan, a private equity expert at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. One fundraiser for private equity adds that normally you’d be winding down such businesses, rather than expanding them, if you were going to run.



from 'Inside Jeb Bush's Shady Business Dealings With China' article:

Hainan, China was the site of George W. Bush's first major foreign policy crisis. In 2001, a reconnaissance aircraft collided with a Chinese plane, and U.S. Navy personnel were stranded on Hainan Island. Following a series of diplomatic maneuvers, mutual recognition of the event, and an apology for the death of a Chinese fighter pilot, the crew was freed.

In 2011, Jeb Bush arrived in Hainan not as an official diplomat—it had been four years since he was a public official—but as an informal liaison between Florida corporations and booming Chinese business. He was greeted by the governor, Luo Baoming, and the Hainan government put up a proud press release about how Hainan and Florida were naturally going to engage in economic cooperation:

Luo Baoming said that Hainan Province and Florida shared many similarities; therefore the two parties had wide cooperation space with immense potential. For example, Hainan and Florida are able to cooperate with each other in cruise industry. There are cruise stop ports in Haikou and Sanya in Hainan Province. During the “12th Five-Year Plan”, a world cruise home port will be built in Sanya. Luo expected that the two parties ware able to set up smooth cooperation channel and John Ellis Bush could play a key role in promoting the mutual cooperation. Finally Luo Baoming invited John Ellis Bush to attend the 2011 Annual Conference of Boao Forum for Asia to become the third person (after his father George Bush and elder brother George Walker Bush) in his family to take part in this forum

In 2013, Bush's private equity business Britton Hill Holdings invested in BH Logistics, which last spring raised $26 million from a variety of investors including HNA group, which is based in Hainan. It also operates 500 jets as part of a subsidiary, Hainan Airlines.

"For the Chinese, the Bush name and the Bush connections to energy are a natural marriage,” China business scholar Derek Scissors told BloombergPolitics. “This is a classic example of the way sophisticated Chinese firms work. They don’t want to get involved directly in a U.S. startup that’s involved in shale, so they’ll take a minority stake to keep a lower profile. They’re looking for political protection, and the Bush name legitimizes the investment and makes him a perfect partner.”

Cha

(297,840 posts)
24. Yeah, rwingers.. they're easily swept up in fit of rage over Hillary or Pres Obama.. She never had
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 09:45 PM
Apr 2015

them.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
22. NYT's own JUDY MILLER is coming out with a book, too--talk about trying to rehabilitate crooks!
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:53 PM
Apr 2015

I say we know them by their works...and the NYT is quite the piece of work, these days.

At long last, have they NO shame? They aren't the "paper of record" anymore....they're like the punk in the neighborhood with a long record!!!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NYT's own reporting under...