Memo undercuts Hillary story on controversial Russian uranium deal

[lostinblue 1,989]

Memo undercuts Hillary story on controversial Russian uranium deal, Clinton foundation

When Hillary Clinton was questioned about a deal that gave Russia increased sway over uranium markets, the former secretary of state and now Democratic presidential nominee said she had no reason to intervene in the decision and didn't even know her husband's foundation was being enriched by its beneficiaries.

"I was not personally involved because that wasn't something the secretary of state did," Clinton told WMUR a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015, the lone time she has addressed the controversy that first surfaced a year ago.

State Department officials in fall 2009 -a year before the U.S. approved the deal- obtained an internal strategy document from Russia's nuclear energy firm, Rosatom, that provided a warning about Moscow's intentions as it "flexes muscles" in uranium markets.

In one cable sent to Clinton, U.S. officials in Brussels warned Russia was about to strong arm U.S. ally Ukraine into a deal for "long-term supply of nuclear fuel" that could "shut" the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the market and extend Moscow's influence over Europe.

While the review process was taking place Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) sounded alarms that the deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America's uranium production capacity." So did five Republican members of Congress led by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who wrote that the deal "would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States."

Despite the warning from her own diplomats and the lawmakers, Clinton did not use her position on the CFISUS to stop the deal.

http://circa.com/politics/election-2016/clinton-warned-in-2009-memo-that-russian-uranium-moves-were-bad-for-us-europe

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Lie early lie often. After a while it will not be news anymore

[Jacque67 7,328]

Schweizers book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich focuses on foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit created by former President Bill Clinton. In his book, Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution, seeks to link some of those donations to the official actions taken by Clinton when she was Secretary of State.

The New York Times, which received an advance copy of the book, wrote an article April 23 that said the Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclose millions in contributions it received from investors who stood to profit from the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with uranium mining stakes in the West, to Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency. The Times said its article built upon Schweizers reporting.

That sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010, giving Russia control over 20 percent of uranium production in the United States, according to the Times.

The book in general and the Times article in particular have stirred up the 2016 presidential campaign. The Clinton Foundation was forced to acknowledge that it made mistakes in failing to disclose some of its donations, and Republicans have questioned Hillary Clintons role in the sale. Mitt Romney said the money donated to the Clinton Foundation looks like bribery, and Sen. Rand Paul called for an investigation.

But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clintons official actions.

The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal. (Fox News was among the media outlets that received an advance copy of his book.) Schweizer made the counterargument again without any evidence that the investors bought her silence by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation

(factcheck.org)

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/

[lostinblue 1,989]

Lie early lie often. After a while it will not be news anymore

the deal "would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States."

[lostinblue 1,989]

"I was not personally involved because that wasn't something the secretary of state did," Clinton told WMUR a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015, the lone time she has addressed the controversy that first surfaced a year ago.

At the time of the sale, Clinton was a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is required by law to investigate all U.S. transactions that involve a company owned or controlled by a foreign government. Federal guidelines say any one of nine voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.

According to this ....she was involved ... Another Clinton lie

[Jacque67 7,328]

Incase you didn't read...no evidence....

[John Miller 761]

Circa.com. Gotta dig deep for your "news" these days, eh?

What's up with these comments under every article. Looks like a scam site to me...

Samia Khan

Now Earning money is more simple... Google gives you a great oppertunity to make heavy income from home.. My last check was $9500 per month I just do my work only 4 to 5 hours daily and earn alot... You also can ear... check more details below

•­•­•­•­•­•­•­•­► https://www.facebook.com/Home-Pay.../app/190322544333196/...

But they do have a real cool story about an innovative anti-gun protest in Texas.

http://circa.com/politics/cocks-not-glocks-protested-against-campus-carry-law