|Willis Hart: On the Fact that at or Around the Same Time that Mrs. Clinton's State Department Was Signing Off on the Transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate, Tens of Millions of Dollars Were Flowing in to the Clinton Foundation from Numerous Associates in this Project AND Bill Clinton Received $500,000 for Belting Out Some Bullshit and Platitudinous Speech In Moscow [Link].|
No, it isn't a smoking-gun but the fact that Mrs. Clinton didn't report at least $2.35 million of this largess (this money coming from the head-honcho of the project, no less) indicates to me that she was at least concerned about the appearance of it. Speaking of "Russian connections". (3/6/2017 at 5:24pm).
That it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has Russia connections is the exact same allegation that Donald Trump has been making. Most recently via twitter.
I wonder if the Trump-defending Hart LIKED either or both of these tweets? Anyway, the House Intelligence Committee isn't looking into the "Bill and Hillary deal" because it wasn't a Bill and Hillary Deal". According to Newsweek "we really don't need to investigate [the] Uranium deal" because the charges are bogus.
|...allegations, first aired in 2015, that the Clinton family benefited from a "pay for play" scheme, whereby U.S. uranium reserves were supposedly transferred to the Russian owners of a mining corporation in return for donations to the Clinton foundation [are] false.|
[in] 2010... Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake in mining company Uranium One. Clinton, as [Secretary of State] had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption... First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state. (Why We Really Don't Need To Investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Uranium Deal" by Josh Lowe. 3/28/2017).
Hillary Clinton might have been "at least concerned about the appearance of it", given the fact that Hillary hating Trump defenders like Willis (who is also a fan of the lying scumbag Peter Schweizer) are so eager to defend Trump and indict her.
Poltifact disputes the suggestion that Bill Clinton being paid 500k by Renaissance Capital (a Russian investment bank) in 2010 was a payoff to get HRC to approve the Uranium One deal. Given the fact that "then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent State on CFIUS, said Clinton herself never intervened in committee matters" [quote via Snopes].
Regarding Willis' claim that the deal would "transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate"... Uranium One is a Canadian company (although the "Russian Conglomerate" Rosatom does now own a 51% controlling share in it). But "Russia cannot export the material from the United States". They're getting the profit, and NOT the uranium. It isn't being "transferred" anywhere (it's staying in the United States).
The real reason for the purchase (as per Politifact) was likely that Russia was "interested in Uranium One's assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer". BTW, I'm not saying approving the deal was the right way to go. I'm thinking that it should NOT have been approved. But is as usually is the case when it comes to those who have money and power... they get what they want.
What I am saying is that there is no evidence of Clinton corruption via "pay-for-play" or "quid pro quo". As Snopes and Politifact point out. And as the scumbag Peter Schweizer himself admits (Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes).
Which isn't to say HRC isn't guilty of "glaring conflicts of interest". But there is a difference between ignoring conflicts of interest and outright naked corruption, for which there exists the opposite of a "smoking gun" (facts that show HRC wasn't involved/couldn't approve the deal).
Video: Peter Schweizer appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss Clinton Cash, 4/26/2015. GS: "...an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote ... 'there's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation'. ... Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?" to which PS replied "no, we don't have direct evidence". (8:04).