General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

Clinton Cash: More Names Revealed of Foundation Donors Who Benefited from Hillary’s State Department

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... epartment/

by Alexander Marlow 23 Apr 20150

On Thursday, the New York Times verified and confirmed facts presented in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash which reveals that in October 2010, then-Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton approved the Russian government’s takeover of a company named Uranium One—a decision that gave away half of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government, resulted in the deal’s investors giving the Clinton Foundation $145 million, and occurred while Bill Clinton made hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees paid for by Kremlin-connected businesses.

Breitbart News has also learned the names of several additional Clinton Foundation donors who were the beneficiaries of Hillary Clinton’s State Department policies beyond those revealed by other sources that have reported on Clinton Cash.

Included in the Clinton Foundation donations were $2.35 million in hidden contributions from Canadian executive Ian Telfer that the Clintons never disclosed—a striking and direct violation of the Clintons’ agreement with the Obama administration that all foreign Clinton foundation donations would be publicly disclosed.

Clinton Cash, which contains 57 pages of endnotes totaling over 600 primary sources and contains no off-the-record interviews, establishes the first reported instance of an undisclosed donation by a foreign individual with business before Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Sec. of State.

Alarmingly, until February 2015, Ian Telfer was the chairman of the Russian-controlled Uranium One—the company Hillary Clinton approved as Sec. of State for the Russian takeover of half of U.S. uranium output.

Most shockingly of all: According to the New York Times, despite assurances to the contrary, the transfer of U.S. uranium to Russian control lacked safeguards to prevent uranium dug out of U.S. soil from being exported.

In a 4,000-word, front-page New York Times exposé, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker and Mike McIntire reported on and confirmed the accuracy of the uranium revelations, one of many featured in the new bombshell book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich by three-time New York Times bestselling author, Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large, and Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President Peter Schweizer.

According to the Times and Schweizer’s book, former President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation mega donor and Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 and met with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbeyev. Giustra wanted lucrative uranium mining concessions, and within 48 hours of Clinton and Giustra’s trip, Giustra’s company, then-named UrAsia Energy, signed memos of understanding outlining the transfer of uranium mining assets.

Months after the trip, Giustra transferred $31.1 million to the Clinton Foundation and announced a multi-year commitment to donate $100 million to the Clinton’s family foundation, as well as half of his future profits.

“All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton,” said Giustra. “He can do things and ask for things no one else can.”

UrAsia Energy then transferred its uranium assets through a merger with a company called Uranium One. In 2009, the Russian State Nuclear Agency (ROSATOM) purchased a minority stake in Uranium One. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a small executive branch task force created in 1975 to evaluate investment transactions that might have a direct effect on U.S. national security. When CFIUS approved Russia’s October 2010 purchase of Uranium One, the deal was projected to transfer half of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government by 2015.

“The ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One,” reports the New York Times.

In addition to Giustra, Clinton Cash reveals—and the New York Times confirms—a host of Clinton Foundation donors were connected to the uranium deal, including:

* Frank Holmes, a shareholder in the deal who donated between $250,000 and $500,000 (the Clinton Foundation doesn’t report exact amounts, only in ranges) and is a Clinton Foundation adviser
* Neil Woodyer, Frank Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavor Financial and pledged $500,000 as well as promises of “ongoing financial support”
* Robert Disbrow, a Haywood Securities broker, the firm that provided “$58 million in capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement,” gave the Clinton’s family foundation between $1 and $5 million, according to Clinton Cash
* Paul Reynolds, a Canaccord Capital Inc., executive who donated between $1 million and $5 million. “The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s history,” reports Schweizer
* GMP Securities Ltd., a UrAsia Energy shareholder that pledged to donate a portion of its profits to the Clinton Foundation
* Robert Cross, a major shareholder who serves as UrAsia Energy Director who pledged portions of his future income to the Clinton Foundation
* Egizio Blanchini, “the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGS-GI’s March 2008 benefit”
* Sergei Kurzin, the Russian rainmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also pledged $1 million to the Foundation
* Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer committed $2.35 million

As the New York Times reports, “Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.”

The Times adds, “The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.”

According to HarperCollins, Schweizer and the GAI spent over one-year conducting their exhaustive deep dive investigation.

The New York Times says Schweizer’s Clinton Cash is written “mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents.” And the Wall Street Journal on Thursday said Clinton Cash “adds fresh details” to previously unreported Clinton financial dealings.

The Times hails Clinton Cash as “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.

And for My Second Act, I’ll Make Some Money

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/weeki ... .html?_r=0

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: September 9, 2007

Correction Appended

A NEW book out last week reported that President Bush wants to hop on the lecture circuit when he leaves office in 2009 — “replenish the ol’ coffers,” as he put it in Robert Draper’s account of his presidency, “Dead Certain.”
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Shout

“I don’t know what my dad gets,” the president told Mr. Draper. “But it’s more than 50, 75” thousand dollars a speech. He added, “Clinton’s making a lot of money.”

In recent years, virtually every president has left office and parlayed his experience into handsome fees. Criticism has followed.

Ronald Reagan was excoriated for taking $2 million for two speeches in Japan, at a time when the United States was locked in economic battle with his hosts; George H. W. Bush’s association with the Carlyle Group was held up to ridicule in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”; and Bill Clinton has been lambasted for extracting eye-popping fees, sometimes $350,000 a speech.

There was no exception for the current president, with critics accusing him — in advance — of venality, greed and capitalizing on his presidency in a time of war.

In the book, Mr. Bush did not really explain his interest in more money. His assets are estimated at between $8 million and $20 million (and his daughters are out of college). Moreover, since the 1950s, when it was clear that Harry Truman could not afford even an office staff, the federal government has taken care of former presidents. Mr. Bush will receive an annual pension of $186,000, travel funds, mailing privileges, Secret Service protection, office space, staff, stationery and transition expenses.

“These are not people who are put out on the street destitute,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates tighter campaign finance rules.

And yet, what is an ex-president to do with the rest of his life? They are now generally leaving office at a younger age than their predecessors and living longer. Mr. Bush will be 62 when he clears out; Bill Clinton was 54. Their youth makes it unrealistic to expect them to retire and vanish.

“Presidents have always been able to profit from their prominence,” said Brian Flanagan, assistant director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Sometimes this surprises people. “We’ve gotten to know our presidents through their careers in public service,” he said. “So people can feel betrayed or confused when they see a former president in a different light, cashing in on their celebrity. You see athletes doing it and movie stars. It’s hard to put a president in the same category.”

Mr. Bush has been vague about his post-presidential plans. He mentioned having “a nice place in Dallas” and setting up a Freedom Institute. Otherwise, he told Mr. Draper, “I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch.”

Mr. Bush is not the first to face a blank slate after serving in the most important job in the world. Franklin Pierce, who left office at 52 in 1857, found post-presidential life a big drag. “After the White House,” he lamented, “what is there to do but drink?” He died at 64.

Mr. Pierce aside, most former presidents have been active one way or another. But in the early days of the republic, they re-emerged in public roles often with the incumbent’s blessing. George Washington, who left office at 65, retired to Mount Vernon but was recalled to command the United States Army when war with France seemed imminent.

“Washington was the model for many years,” said Mark K. Updegrove, author of “Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House.” “You were useful to the degree to which the incumbent could use you, as an emissary, a diplomat, an adviser.”

Those who returned to public service included John Quincy Adams, who went on to serve in the House of Representatives. Andrew Johnson was appointed to the Senate. William Howard Taft finally got the job he wanted, as chief justice of the United States.

But the modern post-presidency has been marked by a new kind of activism, Mr. Updegrove said. It often involves rehabilitating one’s image and making money, and sometimes those have been one and the same.

Richard Nixon spent his early post-Watergate years in exile. Under the 1958 Former President’s Act, a president would forfeit his pension if he were impeached and convicted; Nixon avoided that fate by resigning. In addition, he was paid $600,000 for his interviews with David Frost and $2.3 million for his memoirs.

Gerald R. Ford was the first ex-president to serve on corporate boards. But Mr. Clinton has leveraged his presidency to a greater extent than any other former chief executive, making at least $40 million in speaking fees since leaving the White House in 2001.

He has, however, like other presidents, devoted much of his time — and much of his speaking income — to global charities. He and the first President Bush have joined forces for relief for victims of the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. Former President Jimmy Carter has devoted himself to numerous causes and won the Nobel Prize.

Still, one area of concern about former presidents involves fund-raising for their libraries, which they are allowed to do while in office. Donors don’t even have to be disclosed, though Congress is considering a measure to change that, applying to sitting presidents and for four years after they leave office. Still, the practice has become more complicated with a former president whose son is in the Oval Office now and another whose wife could be soon.

“Retirement has usually meant riding off into the sunset,” said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. “But now, ex-presidents are enormously influential, especially if they are succeeded by their children or their spouses.”

Apart from that measure, the public has not demanded restrictions on former presidents, perhaps because they understand the sacrifices made while in office. The toll is evident in before and after pictures. “It’s an exhausting office, and a lot of presidents don’t survive long after they leave,” said Mr. Flanagan, the historian. “You think, well, they’ve earned the opportunity to go out there and earn a little money.”

Correction: September 16, 2007

An article last Sunday about the employment of former presidents after leaving the White House misstated the circumstances under which a president would lose his pension. Only a president who was impeached and convicted — not merely impeached — would forfeit his pension and related benefits. The article also misstated the title of the chief justice. He is chief justice of the United States — not of the Supreme Court.

Slacker - to your question the answer sadly, is 'no.'

Nothing matters.

Talbot

Well, if you take a look at recent polls, Hillary is dropping fast in the "do you trust her" department. There are something like 32% of Democrats who will stick with her and Obama no matter what they do, so right now at over 50% of people saying they don't trust her, it's not looking good.

Also consider the liberal media is questioning this one too, something they would usually play down. Nothing here folks, move along...not so this time, it's raising questions everywhere.

Something else not noted in this article, the Clintons denied the meeting in Kazakhstan until a reported told them Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbeyev ( if I remember it correctly) had a picture of the meeting proudly displayed on his wall. So then they had to admit the meeting did in fact happen. No surprise there, how many lies have already been proven by both Bill and Hillary?

I did not have sex with that woman.
Benghazi was a reaction to a youtube video
We were dead broke when we left the White House
Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9 - 11
Landed in Bosnia under sniper fire
Her grandparents were all immigrants
Don't let anyone tell you that businesses create jobs

On and on it goes, I don't think either of them would know the truth if it slapped them.

I think this will be a real problem for Hillary, she won't be able to pull off the usual "nothing to see here, move along" routine. The more people find out about her the less they like her, and a lot of people are just getting tired of seeing Clintons in politics, ready for some new faces. That's probably the main reason several of the Republican candidates and hopefuls are pretty well liked on the other side of the fence. Many people don't want a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. I certainly don't want either...didn't like Bush, despise both Clintons, passing the white house back and forth between two families is a bad idea.

I may be wrong, but I think this one might give her some serious problems. I can't remember the guys name, but a former general and White House official was just convicted for less. So far she's been able to do as she pleases and get away with lying, cheating, stealing, basically everything you can think of. It just might all be coming home to roost...

Poke a fork in Hillary I think she's done...or I hope so anyway...

So far she's been able to do as she pleases and get away with lying, cheating, stealing, basically everything you can think of. ..

...and your point is???


Those are required qualifications to be the Democrat nominee!

OK good point...

To be fair though, Hillary and the Democrats are not the only ones who tend to be corrupt liars. I don't trust Republicans either. Hillary just makes a career out of it.

"Polls have shown that Americans value experience over trustworthiness"

"Experience"

What experience? Whitewater? Benghazi? Destroyed servers? Selling bomb grade uranium to our enemy? Lying to congress during investigations on a continuing basis?

I guess the list of her experience is almost endless if you consider only the ones we know about.

Hey any one heard the justice department just confiscated all of Gibson Guitars wood...

That must be an embellished report. That could never happen in America.

Hey any one heard there were never four dead in Ohio. Only an embellishment.

I've seen at least a half dozen people asked during interviews just what Hillary has done she could list as an accomplishment...Not one has been able to come up with a single definite accomplishment...usually the answer is ...Ummmm...

Since I suppose you didn't see the list of outright lies I already posted above here it is again, all proven, documented lies. With commentary this time

Benghazi was a reaction to a youtube video - Nope, terrorist attack and she knew it within minutes.
We were dead broke when we left the White House - Nope, Bill had a $8 million advance on a book deal and his $200,000 per year pension.
Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9 - 11 - Nope, safely in a building 2 or 3 miles away
Landed in Bosnia under sniper fire - And the video that was taken shows them walking calmly across the tarmac shaking hands with everybody in sight with the ever present fake smiles firmly pasted in place
Her grandparents were all immigrants - Nope. Some were, at least one was not.
Don't let anyone tell you that businesses create jobs - so who does??? Just like Obama saying "You didn't build that"...utter crap.

And I'll add one more. In her speech about the email fiasco, she claimed she only used one device. In a TV interview before that she told the interviewer she used an iPhone, Blackberry and iPad. And something else I can't remember. That totals 4 devices if my math is correct. Yet another lie.

Email - Required by state department to use a state.gov email account. Hillary used her own private email account, by her own admission, and AFTER the Congressional inquiry requested that she turn it over for inspection she wiped out everything on it. And that was after they had been trying for 2 years to get anything at all.

None of this is "embellished", it's all documented fact. As of the last time I saw any of the endless commentary about it on TV, there was still no concrete evidence of bribery or "pay for play" in the big stink about donations to the Clinton Foundation, the author of the book put it out there and said "you connect the dots." She was also required to turn over all documents on leaving the state department. She turned over exactly zero.

What is documented fact is that the foundation received a donation of something like $135 million that was not reported in tax forms, I can't remember the exact amount, that was only found out by looking at Canadian tax forms of the company that made the donation. Now the Clintons are changing up to 5 years of their tax returns to correct "mistakes" which leads me to believe there was more than just the one donation that never made it into any tax returns.

This is not all fictitious or embellished allegations. A lot of it is proven, documented fact. Some has already been admitted, but just the parts that won't result in criminal charges.

" Her grandparents were all immigrants - Nope. Some were, at least one was not. "

I heard that only ONE was an immigrant and all the rest were not.

As you have mentioned embellishment, Billary are the greatest embellisher's around. On the other hand, islamabama is the father of all lairs that walk the face of the earth.. Why isn't anyone calling him out on the Russian uranium deal? After all, he HAD to have approved it. No one else could because of security reasons. Funny how he always disappears around accountability time.

Americas top politicians are making tons of money selling pieces of America (under the table) to the dictators and tyrants around the world. At any other time in history they all would be standing in front of firing squads.

Glen

I hadn't realized that Ohio business was so recent!

Talbot

Yeah Mike. That was such a long time ago. Didn't some one say that about Benghazi? I guess that was just an embellishment.

What happened yesterday... Can happen today.

Any one remember that maniac, George Washington? Thank God he formed a group to peacefully vote king george out of office. If he hadn't done what he did, we would never have any tea left.