3jack

Great attempt at distraction. What was the access granted by Clinton, what was involved in the pay to play statement? Also, I have previously posted the financial record of the Clinton Foundation showing exactly where their funds are distributed. Now you should post the links to the documents that supports your claims, ok?

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Fighting back because snagged in their charade!!
Bill stepping down. Righttttttttt. Chelsea left to handle it. Like THAT makes a difference.. Demands for Hillary to disavow her connections, now demanding it's closure and them "considering it"...Yea they are doing damage control is what they are doing...
Read an article yesterday where Hillary is " complaining the media is bring unfair."..lololololo...All I could do was laugh!!! What a pathetic joke...Remember when she was"broke too, or shot at"~~~

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

If you posted the financial records of the Clinton Foundation you posted BS because even the organizations who this type of check say the foundation has too many holes in what they release for anyone to make an informed opinion, only extreme right or left will make claims that they have the real story, with Clinton's track record of lies it's not possible to determine .

Corruption: The Clinton Foundation's questionable money dealings have raised eyebrows for years. Now, a letter circulating in Congress alleges that the Clinton family's supposed do-gooder foundation is in fact a "lawless, 'pay-to-play' enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years."

Those are pretty tough words for a former president and his wife, who happens to be the leading candidate to be our next president. But the congressional letter, which the Daily Caller News Foundation got its hands on, was written by Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who plans on asking the FBI, IRS and Federal Trade Commission to launch a "public corruption" investigation.

Is it warranted, or just politics? It sure looks like the former. As Blackburn's letter says, there is a "pattern of dealing that personally enriched the Clintons at the expense of American foreign policy."

Blackburn cites the for-profit education business Laureate Education, which paid Bill Clinton some $16.5 million to serve part-time as "honorary chancellor" starting in 2010, a year after Hillary became secretary of state. Laureate, for its part, gave the Clinton Foundation some $1 million to $5 million. Nothing illegal about that, per se.

However, the Daily Tennesseean reports that Blackburn's letter also details how "the International Youth Fund, whose board members include Laureate's founder, Douglas Baker, received more than $55 million in grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state." AID is a part of the State Department.
Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.

Then there's Uranium One. Hillary Clinton, the Daily Tennesseean notes, "was one of several Obama administration officials who approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company, whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation." A number of other people involved in the deal also gave money to the Clintons.

"The appearance of 'pay-to-play' transactions involving Laureate and Uranium One also raises serious allegations of criminal conduct requiring further examination," Blackburn's letter says.

That's not all of the questionable activities.

As we noted back in May, the Clinton Foundation took in some $100 million in donations from a variety of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires who no doubt expected to reap political benefits from a future Hillary Clinton presidency, with Bill serving not just as first gentleman in the White House but also possibly as bagman. Among donors dumping bags of cash on the Clintons include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Lost in the shuffle is Bill Clinton's special "business partnership" from 2003 to 2008 with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the strongman ruler of Dubai. That deal netted Clinton some $15 million in "guaranteed payments," tax records show. And then there's the $30 million delivered to the Clintons by two Mideast foundations and four billionaire Saudis. For the betterment of humankind, no doubt.

As national security analyst and writer Patrick Poole said in May, "These regimes are buying access. ... There are massive conflicts of interest. It's beyond comprehension."

It took Wall Street financial analyst and investment advisor Charles Ortel -- whom the Sunday Times of London once described as "one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet" -- to untangle the mess in a series of ongoing reports. Ortel alleges that contribution disclosures by the foundation often don't fit with what donors' own records say -- big red flag.

"This," Ortel summed up, "is a charity fraud."

As a reminder, this isn't just some political vendetta. As far back as 2013, an alarmed New York Times warned that the foundation had become "a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest."

It turns out that's a gross understatement.

Testifying last week to Congress, FBI chief James Comey called Hillary Clinton "extremely careless" about her use of a private email server while secretary of state. But, curiously, he refused additional comment "on the existence or nonexistence of any other ongoing investigations." This needs to be disclosed. Americans deserve to know whether the person they're likely to put into the White House this November is merely a misunderstood career public servant -- or a pocket-lining career criminal.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Kicken butt and not taken names I see, bmac.....Nailed it you did my friend..
Lest we forget the emails asking for things subsequently granted, meetings, etc or getting someone in the country ..Yea, it's all on the up n up for sure...pfftttt

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

No attempt at anything but the Clinton's love distractions that why the put their hands in a little of everything.

he headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor 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.

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.

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.
Photo
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

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.

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.

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 a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
Graphic
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.
OPEN Graphic

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Opinion Editorial
Candidate Clinton and the Foundation APRIL 23, 2015
Opinion Public Editor's Journal
An ‘Exclusive’ Arrangement on a Clinton Book, and Many Questions APRIL 23, 2015

Recent Comments
Carol B April 24, 2015

Brian Fallon is right. No one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as...
Joseph Scott April 24, 2015

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence...
Van Snyder April 24, 2015

This underscores the fecklessness of canceling the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program in 1994, when it was an inch from completion, at more...

See All Comments

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.
Photo
Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Credit Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.
Part two to follow

.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Part two

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.
Photo
Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. Credit Mikhail Metzel/Associated Press

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.
Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation
Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Advi



[quote=bmac32]No attempt at anything but the Clinton's love distractions that why the put their hands in a little of everything.

he headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor 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.

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.

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.
Photo
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

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.

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.

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 a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
Graphic
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.
OPEN Graphic

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Opinion Editorial
Candidate Clinton and the Foundation APRIL 23, 2015
Opinion Public Editor's Journal
An ‘Exclusive’ Arrangement on a Clinton Book, and Many Questions APRIL 23, 2015

Recent Comments
Carol B April 24, 2015

Brian Fallon is right. No one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as...
Joseph Scott April 24, 2015

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence...
Van Snyder April 24, 2015

This underscores the fecklessness of canceling the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program in 1994, when it was an inch from completion, at more...

See All Comments

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.
Photo
Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Credit Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

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

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

The Clinton's are a forn of Organized Crime plain and simple, had to believe half the country is for this shit, ain't the country I grew up in!

3jack

Your words mean nothing to me, post your BS to support your claims. What was the access gained and what was the pay for play issues involved with Clinton as SOS? Funny, you never seem to answer what I asked, but you do fill in a lot of space with distracting BS rhetoric.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Amen to that or that we'd see such a shift in some supposed citizens!!!

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Even the NY Times had a hard time but you (the hard left) are willing to give her a free pass. Very odd you fail to read like most other people. Now if it were the other way (now say Bush and WMD) even though they have found and many have been used, in your silly little mind Bush will always be guilty. My God if a republican were involved in a Clinton type foundation you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs. If this were the other way your lame stream media would report it everyday and hours on end.

3jack

Your distractive rhetoric will not sway me from the questions I asked in my first post. You talked about Clinton allowing access to her office and accommodating a "play for pay" scheme from the SOS office, and I asked for specifics from you, the poster. You have yet to provide those specifics, so I can concur that your post was rife with right wing talking points with nothing to support those points. Bye.

Airforceone

I never said that what Clinton had done in certain areas was not wrong. But both you fucking idiots missed the point of the topic because you hate the Clinton's and that's okay. Now answer the question.

Law does not require a foundation to release financials, Donor list, or Tax returns. You'rnot that stupid that you would disagree arrrr maybe you are stupid.
Now in the interest of being transparent the Clinton's released everything. Now what has Trump released absolutely nothing why won't he release his Taxes. The Bush family during 8 years of Bush 43 absolutely refused to release there financials or donor lit. But the Clinton's released there's because they have nothing to hide.
Now the conspiracy theorist go to work and start to connect dots here's an example Mary talked to Paul and Paul talked to his friend Bill who happens to know a Russian Clinton's have to be guilty.

Now why are the Clinton's held to a higher standard and Bush and Trump get a pass

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Sway you, only if I get you to jump off that bridge. You and td should get together and play jack it.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Airforceone

There has not been an answer to my topic and all I was asking was why when the Clinton's release there Taxes, foundation Financials, and there Donor list for the conspiracy theorist to put together all this BS. And by law there not required to release any of these documents. But when Bush family was asked they said no. And we know Trump will not release anything.

Now who is being transparent, if the Clinton's had anything to hide do you think they would release all this stuff. They have not even acknowledged the facts of the the state department investigation that there is no evidence that Clinton and foundation did anything illegal so pay for play is just another BS talking point dreamed up by right wing conspiracy theorist. It's the same thing with the emails did Clinton use bad judgement with the private server yes she did she admitted that. But did she break the law no it's blown so far out of proportion.