Zambroski Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: Post your link showing the connection between Clinton and the Nuclear deal. But before you embarrass yourself further at least read the Politifact link. This is old news. The jury has heard the evidence and issued their verdict of "NOT PRESIDENT" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logga Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 On 3/17/2017 at 2:50 PM, Mainecat said: What a prick......really what the fuck is wrong with you? National embarrassment Trump refuses to shake Merkel's hand in photo op. Was he pissed that she wore a pantsuit? Guess she didn't get his "women must look like women" memo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 3 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Post your link showing the connection between Clinton and the Nuclear deal. But before you embarrass yourself further at least read the Politifact link. why would I read from a hack site,? face it , your double standards are obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) Why is this thread still here FAKENEWSMAINECUNT was on this like sixth post Edited March 23, 2017 by Momorider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Sleepr2 said: why would I read from a hack site,? face it , your double standards are obvious Awwww poor stupid Sleeper. It was a two part question. Where is your link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: Awwww poor stupid Sleeper. It was a two part question. Where is your link? I don't need a link U can look up hundreds of articles about her hiding big payments to the foundation from board members of UR1. but ok 1 quick link from a site u trust . U can do the rest of your own leg work about the fraudulent cunt U bow at the alter of https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 26 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: Awwww poor stupid Sleeper. It was a two part question. Where is your link? Clintons pay for play is well known, as for being stupid? Your stupidity is obvious, along with your hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Ez ryder said: I don't need a link U can look up hundreds of articles about her hiding big payments to the foundation from board members of UR1. but ok 1 quick link from a site u trust . U can do the rest of your own leg work about the fraudulent cunt U bow at the alter of https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-founda tion-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 VigilinK? Yeah, trustworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: VigilinK? Yeah, trustworthy. now the newyork times is not good enough for u lib tards ? really? k don't know why link is going to shopping NYTmust be ashamed for talking about it? https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 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 Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company. Frank Holmes $250,000 to $500,000 Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011. Neil Woodyer $50,000 to $100,000 Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra. GMP Securities Ltd. Donating portion of profits Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One The 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story (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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. 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 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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 Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company. Frank Holmes $250,000 to $500,000 Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011. Neil Woodyer $50,000 to $100,000 Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra. GMP Securities Ltd. Donating portion of profits Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One. The Power to Say No When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium. California Today The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings. Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email. View all New York Times newsletters. See Sample Manage Email Preferences Not you? Privacy Policy Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.” “The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.” When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Photo President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007. Credit Dmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images “Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.” Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Still, 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 in donations from people associated with Uranium One. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Undisclosed Donations Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors. To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating. Photo Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times Advertisement Continue reading the main story But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit. His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said. The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response. Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.” Photo John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. Advertisement Continue reading the main story A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal. Diplomatic Considerations If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador. It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels. Photo Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom. Credit Daniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images “This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.” And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.” Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight. “Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada. Write A Comment Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines. The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it. Correction: April 23, 2015 An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer. An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations. Correction: April 30, 2015 An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations. Andrew E. Kramer contributed reporting. Sarah Cohen contributed research. Follow The New York Times Politics and Washington on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter. A version of this article appears in print on April 24, 2015, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Clintons, The Russians and Uranium. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe Continue reading the main story From Our Advertisers We’re interested in your feedback on this page. Tell us what you think. Close this panel 1891 Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com. All 1891 Readers’ Picks 1032 NYT Picks 45 newest NYT Pick James Jordan Falls Church, Va April 23, 2015 This report really makes me wonder why there is not a public audit of the Clinton Foundation. This uranium deal hit the "tilt" button and it would seem to me that the sources and uses of Clinton Foundation's funds is in order. There may not be anything wrong. The Foundation may be doing wonderful things with the donations but I don't really believe that this tax exempt foundation would be harmed by an audit. An publicly disclosed audit would clear up the suspicion of corruption and use of a public job to influence donors or be subject to the influence of donors. The audit could pave the way for Mrs. Clinton's bid for the White House, without the audit she will be constantly under suspicion. Flag 794Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Mark M Tuscaloosa, AL April 23, 2015 I was an early supporter of Barack Obama, and thought Hillary Clinton had far too much political baggage, and far too little charisma, to be elected president. What worries me, and a lot of other Democrats, is that she seems to be anointed this time around with little or no thought to the fact that she could lose this election. While I question the timing of this report on the Clinton Foundation (it reeks of politics coming so soon after Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy), it nevertheless raises troubling questions. This coming election is too important for Democrats to lose. I'm am hoping that Elizabeth Warren will reconsider her decision to not enter the campaign. We need her. The next president, if she or he serves two terms, could end up naming four justices to the Supreme Court. If Republicans win the White House, the government will turn more right wing than ever. And it's already headed too far in that direction. Flag 593Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick 24b4Jeff Expat April 23, 2015 This is just another piece of evidence confirming what any unbiased observer would have concluded a year or more ago: there is no fundamental difference between the democrats and republicans. Both are bought and paid for by big money, and it matters not where that money comes from or what it stands for. The clear alternative, and the only possibility for getting the message across, is to eschew both parties in the upcoming election. Personally, I expect to vote Green, because of the alignment between that party's platform and my own political values. But I recognize that each person sees things in their own way, so please, if you like the democrats or republicans, be sure to vote for them. Only, don't complain! Flag 275Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick fran soyer ny April 23, 2015 I love how people are perfectly willing to say that it is OK for other candidates to run their campaigns with literally billions of dollars that are completely untraceable and anonymous, but think that 2 million going to an organization that is not even a campaign fund is disqualifying. Flag 673Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick George Heiner AZ - MX border April 23, 2015 I should have known something was stinking when I had seen all the delighted smiles from Bill Clinton over the success of his foundation. I suppose the only way that Hilary Clinton can respond without going into a suicidal denial is to say that the benefits of what the foundation has done have outweighed the sleazy way in which the funds were acquired. At least this would apprise voters of the gravity of the issue and the decisions from which it grew. I won't hold my breath, though. It is time for the Clintons to relieve themselves of any presumption that they own a self-fashioned, bequeathed future in current American politics. By contrast, it is time for them to retire, permanently, and relieve the American voter of the unfair weight of their accumulated political skeletons now reborn from the closet. As many have mentioned, Americans deserve much better, and there are many progressives who could be a good Democratic president and finally, after two centuries of opaque government, insist on transparency. Why do we have to blindly accept the Clinton legacy, when it is clear, as this article so importantly states, that the ties that bind do not necessarily enhance the opportunities of the America so many love. The one I see in the Clinton's vision is more akin to a House of Cards episode than to anything sane. Flag 410Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick ScottW is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC April 23, 2015 When the Clintons are faced with a choice--take the money or avoid the appearance of impropriety--they always opt for the former. In the legal profession, judges must recuse themselves if there is the appearance of impropriety because people will lose faith in the legal system if they don't. One does not have to prove the judge accepted something of value that in fact will influence her decision to be recused. In other words, the Judge cannot say the favor will not influence her decision. Were the payments made to the Clinton Foundation and Mr. Clinton's $500,000 speech intended to influence Ms. Clinton while she was Secretary of State? Let's put it this way. Believing that the payments of millions did in fact influence her decision seems more likely than not and that is the essence of an appearance of improriety. Conclusive evidence is not required. Ms. Clinton should recuse herself from the Presidential race and spare those who don't want to see a Republican as President the pain of enduring the scandals concerning the Foundation that will undoubtedly follow over the next year. Flag 316Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Charles Lyell South Carolina April 23, 2015 This is one of the most amazing, troubling things I have read in quite a while, and that is really saying something given what is going on globally. I commend the NY Times for digging into this and exposing a situation that deserves some serious scrutiny. Whether Hillary&Bill or anyone else, selling the rights to our uranium reserves to Russia can not be a wise decision. Flag 474Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Mineola Rhode Island April 23, 2015 Nicholas Kristof's book, A Path Appears, provided many examples of people who, on the face of it, wanted to do good work in the world, so set up their own (emphasis on "their own") new charitable groups. As they fund-raise, they gain power and prestige. As they disseminate their group's new wealth, they display this power. They do some good in the process. But as I pointed out to Kristof, the urge to gain and control power seems to be a driving force. The Clinton Foundation seems to exemplify this writ large. That being said, I see that as more reflective on a potential First Gentleman than Hillary. There is no doubt in my mind Hillary is the best qualified candidate - she works across the aisle, knows the machinations of the government, is known amongst world leaders, knows the geopolitical landscape, is smart as a tack, and loves this country, all its people, and will fight for women. Flag 133Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick paula is a trusted commenterApril 23, 2015 I am terrified of Hillary Clinton being our next Ralph Nader -- a spoiler. She could cost Democrats the presidency -- as people turn away from her to nothing or worse, to the Republican candidate. Whatever her strengths, her liabilities are too, too many. Flag 166Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Dan Elson London April 23, 2015 I would say that very few donations are entirely philanthropic by their nature. In this case though I find it hard to believe that a whole chain of people would sacrifice their beliefs in order to secure this sum of money for the Clinton Foundation. However I commend the vigilance from the American media in these matters. In UK things are different, here people can become Peers in the House of Lords by large enough party donations and ex top politicians without second thoughts offer their services as lobbyists for large corporations. I might add that Clinton was not one of my favourite presidents. He is still at his best when he plays the saxophone. Apart from that he was for me quite like Blair i.e speaking with a soft voice and looking good on television especially when he used that "dog eyed' look Flag 51Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Romeo Salta New York, NY April 23, 2015 If the Democrats lose the White House they have no one to blame but themselves. By all accounts they should win it in 2016 - they can point to how the Republicans destroyed the economy twice while Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were at the helm and how they helped bring it back on track. Yet, for the past six years, they were all too ready to anoint Hillary as the next candidate for president - no one would dare contest her assumed candidacy, even though they knew, or should have known, that the baggage piling up with the former president, her husband, would surely provide the Republicans fodder for alleging corruption, conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and outright lies. Hillary's protestations that she has nothing to do with the foundation is as unpersuasive as her remarks that she just deleted emails of yoga poses, wedding planning, etc. This also goes to show why we should NOT have political dynasties in our system. Another Bush or another Clinton? Why vote? Flag 172Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick billsett Mount Pleasant, SC April 23, 2015 Is there just smoke here, or fire? The way money washes around the globe among the rich and powerful is disturbing, and this article illustrates that very well. But if one reads between the lines, it's not at all clear that the NYT reporters found any direct connection between the uranium mine transaction and Secretary Clinton or her agency during the relevant periods. Either way, the whole thing makes my head hurt. On the upside, let's recognize that the Clintons are the most scrutinized and investigated prominent politicians in US history. Decades of poking into every nook and cranny by their political enemies have produced little. Is it that they're made of Teflon, or that the stuff thrown at them was not strong enough to stick? Flag 152Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick K.Futterer Birmingham, UK April 23, 2015 Story highlights the inherent difficulty of influence peddling, as money flows over years and loyalties are built gradually. Clear links between donations and favourable actions are hard to prove or disprove, even as they appear fairly evident. A president H Clinton will find it hard to isolate herself from such influences, and even harder to avoid any undue perceptions, even if the Clinton Foundation stopped taking any donation today. Bill Clinton's status as the global political celebrity has a lot to do with the kind of money his foundation can raise (and vice versa). Americans should think long and hard about the vulnerabilities of an HRC presidency, despite the undeniable qualities this candidate has. Flag 52Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Cicero's Warning Long Island, NY April 23, 2015 There are two issues here: 1) Our government's approval of a Russian atomic energy agency taking over a Canadian company, which controls one-fifth of U.S. uranium production and 2) the fact Russians interested in getting approval of this take over paid the Clinton Foundation and Hillary. By putting both in this story, the insinuation is that they are related. However, this piece contains no evidence that the payments and approvals are related. What seems more evident is that people in positions of power, like the Clinton's, live in a world where vast amounts of money are thrown around easily and where elites have an "unspoken understanding" to trust each other beyond national loyalties. Given this context, my real concern is that our government, including Hillary at the time, was unable or willing to step in to stop this deal given the strategic importance of nuclear energy. Flag 152Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick J D R Brooklyn NY April 23, 2015 Initially, I furrowed my brows in anger while reading this article. Then I just sighed. While this may be a tasty revelation, it also confirms that the US does business with a lot of different people and countries we would normally consider shady or evil or simply at odds with our government. Surely, other countries with either questionable or downright nefarious track records on a variety of issues -- China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Venezuela -- also hold great interests in various businesses in the US. I guess we can now officially say that Mrs. Clinton has joined the ranks of those Republican candidates who receive "dark money" for campaigns. And what's the difference between the Russians and the Koch brothers when it comes to business and protecting their own interests? Flag 80Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick 66hawk Gainesville, VA April 23, 2015 Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this article to anything I care about. The right will feast on this, no doubt, but what I care about is policy positions. There is no smoking gun, only conspiracy theories. The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good, and apparently did nothing illegal. Whether it offends someone's personal ethical standards is an individual choice. Flag 206Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston April 23, 2015 Warren fans (I'm one too); please stop wasting your energy. She's doing well and doing good where she is, and she's utterly clear she is not going to run. I could wish she was running, just to shift the debate towards the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and give Hillary an excuse to cater to her better self. But with others, I am sick and tired of the Hillary bashing. We prefer shooting at each other to addressing the real villains in plain sight. The compromising and power brokering come with the job, and while I cannot like it, I don't think anyone outside that circle has a chance. I'd love to see universal required voting, short election season, TV ads banned or restrained. TV is laughing all the way to the bank while the rest of us lose. Flag 221Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick TDurk Rochester NY April 23, 2015 Reuters has just published that the Clinton Foundation must refile at least five years of tax returns to more accurately disclose contributions from foreign governments. We cannot squander the next presidential election to the republicans by the democrats running Ms Clinton for the highest office. Flag 116Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Bill is a trusted commenter Des Moines April 23, 2015 Is anyone surprised? The Clinton's have been surrounded by controversy since they came on the scene. Money always seems to be in the background. Although never proven guilty think of just a few items - Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, Walmart Board, Clinton Foundation donations. Sure the Republicans are always looking under rocks for issues but, unfortunately, they don't have to look very hard. Mrs. Clinton erased her emails after generously letting us see the ones she felt were relevant. How convenient. I wonder how many of the private emails dealt with Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton speeches, and government actions? Many commenters here love to make fun of the Republican candidates for the nomination. However, at least the public gets to see a range of views and personalities. On the Democratic side we are told there is only one person available - Hillary. They either have no bench or are frightened of the Clintons. Flag 105Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Tommy V Long Island April 23, 2015 The money flows to power. Eventually favors are received in a multitude of obscure ways. The power denies there's any quid pro quo. The powerless are left behind. It's true that the money went to philanthropic causes in this case, but that doesn't mean there's no payback. The American political system desperately needs transparency like this for all candidates. But in the end, who would be left to vote for? Flag 61Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick PB CNY April 23, 2015 Investigative reporting is what is needed in our politically secretive, corrupt and collusive country. Thanks New York Times for doing your job in an era when every effort has been made by the self-serving rich and their lackey politicians and Supreme Court Gang of 5 to eliminate transparency in our shamefully shady and shadowy world of undemocratic campaign politics. Am I surprised by what the NY Times found out about the Russian uranium company and the Clinton Foundation? No. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. How much evidence do we need that the Clintons think they are above the law and that rules are for everyone else. It is pretty clear that the Clintons are in politics not so much for what they can do for the country (repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA anyone?), but for what politics can do for them personally ($500K for a Hillary speech? Wow, that's a lot of money for someone who is not a good speech writer or speaker). The Clintons aren't the only politicians like this. But we Americans have higher expectations for our President than for our members of Congress. Democrats especially are expected to look out for everyday people, to be champions of good government, and not to be in the grips of and as tightly beholden to the wealthy 1% as the Republicans. Democratic Party: Please do not put all your eggs in the Hillary basket. Encourage other talented, experienced Democrats to get into the 2016 presidential race so the best Democrat can win. Flag 104Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick TiredOfLobbyists FL April 23, 2015 This story comes from the right wing Clinton Cash book. I'd be careful to read too much into it since it was written by someone who has a history of inaccurate statements and lies. Notice the NYT disclaimer... "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.” Flag 117Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Ed Honolulu April 23, 2015 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 won't say that she did not support the interests of donors, only that there is no proof. She's arranged for that, of course, by destroying her emails and the server they were on. However, we do have her word that she really cares about the interests of "everyday Americans." Is there any evidence for that? Or was it destroyed because it's "personal?" Flag 110Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Pete New Jersey April 23, 2015 All this newest "revelation" does is reinforce the fact that the Democrats really need a "Plan B" rather than putting all of their eggs in the single basket of Hillary Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, she carries so much political baggage that she could single-handedly lose the 2016 elections, which the Democrats should be able to win on policy issues. And that "Plan B" really needs to be an electable candidate, not the often-mentioned, but probably too left-wing for the majority voting populace, Elizabeth Warren. Flag 83Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick lulu out there April 23, 2015 The Koch Bros. and their cohorts are buying the federal govt for $2 billion and you're worried about a couple of million? Flag 167Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter Loading... Read More View all 1891 comments 1891 Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com. All 1891 Readers’ Picks 1032 NYT Picks 45 newest Ideas. Ignited. 50% Off For 1 Year for one year. Edited March 23, 2017 by Ez ryder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 22 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: VigilinK? Yeah, trustworthy. ok your paper now that u saw with your own eyes reported from your media what do u have to say about her? who is really the traitor on the take from Russia? really we want a answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, Ez ryder said: ok your paper now that u saw with your own eyes reported from your media what do u have to say about her? who is really the traitor on the take from Russia? really we want a answer Fucking OWNAGE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Zambroski said: Fucking OWNAGE! wtf is up with NYT not letting u cut and past stuff they printed and now don't like ? it is crazy they auto shoot u to adds. u try to cup and past article it try's to insert a add every paragraph ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 hour ago, revkevsdi said: Awwww poor stupid Sleeper. It was a two part question. Where is your link? HELLO u have had plenty of time to look over the NYT page what are your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold War Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Ez ryder said: HELLO u have had plenty of time to look over the NYT page what are your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 9 hours ago, revkevsdi said: VigilinK? Yeah, trustworthy. still waiting on a comment from u on your trusted source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 13 hours ago, Ez ryder said: now the newyork times is not good enough for u lib tards ? really? k don't know why link is going to shopping NYTmust be ashamed for talking about it? https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 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 Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company. Frank Holmes $250,000 to $500,000 Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011. Neil Woodyer $50,000 to $100,000 Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra. GMP Securities Ltd. Donating portion of profits Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One The 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story (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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. 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 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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 Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company. Frank Holmes $250,000 to $500,000 Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011. Neil Woodyer $50,000 to $100,000 Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra. GMP Securities Ltd. Donating portion of profits Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One. The Power to Say No When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium. California Today The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings. Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email. View all New York Times newsletters. See Sample Manage Email Preferences Not you? Privacy Policy Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.” “The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.” When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Photo President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007. Credit Dmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images “Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.” Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Still, 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 in donations from people associated with Uranium One. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Undisclosed Donations Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors. To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating. Photo Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times Advertisement Continue reading the main story But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit. His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said. The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response. Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview. Advertisement Continue reading the main story 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. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.” Photo John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking. Advertisement Continue reading the main story A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal. Diplomatic Considerations If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador. It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels. Photo Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom. Credit Daniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images “This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.” And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.” Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight. “Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada. Write A Comment Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines. The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it. Correction: April 23, 2015 An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer. An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations. Correction: April 30, 2015 An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations. Andrew E. Kramer contributed reporting. Sarah Cohen contributed research. Follow The New York Times Politics and Washington on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter. A version of this article appears in print on April 24, 2015, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Clintons, The Russians and Uranium. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe Continue reading the main story From Our Advertisers We’re interested in your feedback on this page. Tell us what you think. Close this panel 1891 Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com. All 1891 Readers’ Picks 1032 NYT Picks 45 newest NYT Pick James Jordan Falls Church, Va April 23, 2015 This report really makes me wonder why there is not a public audit of the Clinton Foundation. This uranium deal hit the "tilt" button and it would seem to me that the sources and uses of Clinton Foundation's funds is in order. There may not be anything wrong. The Foundation may be doing wonderful things with the donations but I don't really believe that this tax exempt foundation would be harmed by an audit. An publicly disclosed audit would clear up the suspicion of corruption and use of a public job to influence donors or be subject to the influence of donors. The audit could pave the way for Mrs. Clinton's bid for the White House, without the audit she will be constantly under suspicion. Flag 794Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Mark M Tuscaloosa, AL April 23, 2015 I was an early supporter of Barack Obama, and thought Hillary Clinton had far too much political baggage, and far too little charisma, to be elected president. What worries me, and a lot of other Democrats, is that she seems to be anointed this time around with little or no thought to the fact that she could lose this election. While I question the timing of this report on the Clinton Foundation (it reeks of politics coming so soon after Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy), it nevertheless raises troubling questions. This coming election is too important for Democrats to lose. I'm am hoping that Elizabeth Warren will reconsider her decision to not enter the campaign. We need her. The next president, if she or he serves two terms, could end up naming four justices to the Supreme Court. If Republicans win the White House, the government will turn more right wing than ever. And it's already headed too far in that direction. Flag 593Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick 24b4Jeff Expat April 23, 2015 This is just another piece of evidence confirming what any unbiased observer would have concluded a year or more ago: there is no fundamental difference between the democrats and republicans. Both are bought and paid for by big money, and it matters not where that money comes from or what it stands for. The clear alternative, and the only possibility for getting the message across, is to eschew both parties in the upcoming election. Personally, I expect to vote Green, because of the alignment between that party's platform and my own political values. But I recognize that each person sees things in their own way, so please, if you like the democrats or republicans, be sure to vote for them. Only, don't complain! Flag 275Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick fran soyer ny April 23, 2015 I love how people are perfectly willing to say that it is OK for other candidates to run their campaigns with literally billions of dollars that are completely untraceable and anonymous, but think that 2 million going to an organization that is not even a campaign fund is disqualifying. Flag 673Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick George Heiner AZ - MX border April 23, 2015 I should have known something was stinking when I had seen all the delighted smiles from Bill Clinton over the success of his foundation. I suppose the only way that Hilary Clinton can respond without going into a suicidal denial is to say that the benefits of what the foundation has done have outweighed the sleazy way in which the funds were acquired. At least this would apprise voters of the gravity of the issue and the decisions from which it grew. I won't hold my breath, though. It is time for the Clintons to relieve themselves of any presumption that they own a self-fashioned, bequeathed future in current American politics. By contrast, it is time for them to retire, permanently, and relieve the American voter of the unfair weight of their accumulated political skeletons now reborn from the closet. As many have mentioned, Americans deserve much better, and there are many progressives who could be a good Democratic president and finally, after two centuries of opaque government, insist on transparency. Why do we have to blindly accept the Clinton legacy, when it is clear, as this article so importantly states, that the ties that bind do not necessarily enhance the opportunities of the America so many love. The one I see in the Clinton's vision is more akin to a House of Cards episode than to anything sane. Flag 410Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick ScottW is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC April 23, 2015 When the Clintons are faced with a choice--take the money or avoid the appearance of impropriety--they always opt for the former. In the legal profession, judges must recuse themselves if there is the appearance of impropriety because people will lose faith in the legal system if they don't. One does not have to prove the judge accepted something of value that in fact will influence her decision to be recused. In other words, the Judge cannot say the favor will not influence her decision. Were the payments made to the Clinton Foundation and Mr. Clinton's $500,000 speech intended to influence Ms. Clinton while she was Secretary of State? Let's put it this way. Believing that the payments of millions did in fact influence her decision seems more likely than not and that is the essence of an appearance of improriety. Conclusive evidence is not required. Ms. Clinton should recuse herself from the Presidential race and spare those who don't want to see a Republican as President the pain of enduring the scandals concerning the Foundation that will undoubtedly follow over the next year. Flag 316Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Charles Lyell South Carolina April 23, 2015 This is one of the most amazing, troubling things I have read in quite a while, and that is really saying something given what is going on globally. I commend the NY Times for digging into this and exposing a situation that deserves some serious scrutiny. Whether Hillary&Bill or anyone else, selling the rights to our uranium reserves to Russia can not be a wise decision. Flag 474Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Mineola Rhode Island April 23, 2015 Nicholas Kristof's book, A Path Appears, provided many examples of people who, on the face of it, wanted to do good work in the world, so set up their own (emphasis on "their own") new charitable groups. As they fund-raise, they gain power and prestige. As they disseminate their group's new wealth, they display this power. They do some good in the process. But as I pointed out to Kristof, the urge to gain and control power seems to be a driving force. The Clinton Foundation seems to exemplify this writ large. That being said, I see that as more reflective on a potential First Gentleman than Hillary. There is no doubt in my mind Hillary is the best qualified candidate - she works across the aisle, knows the machinations of the government, is known amongst world leaders, knows the geopolitical landscape, is smart as a tack, and loves this country, all its people, and will fight for women. Flag 133Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick paula is a trusted commenterApril 23, 2015 I am terrified of Hillary Clinton being our next Ralph Nader -- a spoiler. She could cost Democrats the presidency -- as people turn away from her to nothing or worse, to the Republican candidate. Whatever her strengths, her liabilities are too, too many. Flag 166Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Dan Elson London April 23, 2015 I would say that very few donations are entirely philanthropic by their nature. In this case though I find it hard to believe that a whole chain of people would sacrifice their beliefs in order to secure this sum of money for the Clinton Foundation. However I commend the vigilance from the American media in these matters. In UK things are different, here people can become Peers in the House of Lords by large enough party donations and ex top politicians without second thoughts offer their services as lobbyists for large corporations. I might add that Clinton was not one of my favourite presidents. He is still at his best when he plays the saxophone. Apart from that he was for me quite like Blair i.e speaking with a soft voice and looking good on television especially when he used that "dog eyed' look Flag 51Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Romeo Salta New York, NY April 23, 2015 If the Democrats lose the White House they have no one to blame but themselves. By all accounts they should win it in 2016 - they can point to how the Republicans destroyed the economy twice while Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were at the helm and how they helped bring it back on track. Yet, for the past six years, they were all too ready to anoint Hillary as the next candidate for president - no one would dare contest her assumed candidacy, even though they knew, or should have known, that the baggage piling up with the former president, her husband, would surely provide the Republicans fodder for alleging corruption, conflicts of interest, self-dealing, and outright lies. Hillary's protestations that she has nothing to do with the foundation is as unpersuasive as her remarks that she just deleted emails of yoga poses, wedding planning, etc. This also goes to show why we should NOT have political dynasties in our system. Another Bush or another Clinton? Why vote? Flag 172Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick billsett Mount Pleasant, SC April 23, 2015 Is there just smoke here, or fire? The way money washes around the globe among the rich and powerful is disturbing, and this article illustrates that very well. But if one reads between the lines, it's not at all clear that the NYT reporters found any direct connection between the uranium mine transaction and Secretary Clinton or her agency during the relevant periods. Either way, the whole thing makes my head hurt. On the upside, let's recognize that the Clintons are the most scrutinized and investigated prominent politicians in US history. Decades of poking into every nook and cranny by their political enemies have produced little. Is it that they're made of Teflon, or that the stuff thrown at them was not strong enough to stick? Flag 152Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick K.Futterer Birmingham, UK April 23, 2015 Story highlights the inherent difficulty of influence peddling, as money flows over years and loyalties are built gradually. Clear links between donations and favourable actions are hard to prove or disprove, even as they appear fairly evident. A president H Clinton will find it hard to isolate herself from such influences, and even harder to avoid any undue perceptions, even if the Clinton Foundation stopped taking any donation today. Bill Clinton's status as the global political celebrity has a lot to do with the kind of money his foundation can raise (and vice versa). Americans should think long and hard about the vulnerabilities of an HRC presidency, despite the undeniable qualities this candidate has. Flag 52Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Cicero's Warning Long Island, NY April 23, 2015 There are two issues here: 1) Our government's approval of a Russian atomic energy agency taking over a Canadian company, which controls one-fifth of U.S. uranium production and 2) the fact Russians interested in getting approval of this take over paid the Clinton Foundation and Hillary. By putting both in this story, the insinuation is that they are related. However, this piece contains no evidence that the payments and approvals are related. What seems more evident is that people in positions of power, like the Clinton's, live in a world where vast amounts of money are thrown around easily and where elites have an "unspoken understanding" to trust each other beyond national loyalties. Given this context, my real concern is that our government, including Hillary at the time, was unable or willing to step in to stop this deal given the strategic importance of nuclear energy. Flag 152Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick J D R Brooklyn NY April 23, 2015 Initially, I furrowed my brows in anger while reading this article. Then I just sighed. While this may be a tasty revelation, it also confirms that the US does business with a lot of different people and countries we would normally consider shady or evil or simply at odds with our government. Surely, other countries with either questionable or downright nefarious track records on a variety of issues -- China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Venezuela -- also hold great interests in various businesses in the US. I guess we can now officially say that Mrs. Clinton has joined the ranks of those Republican candidates who receive "dark money" for campaigns. And what's the difference between the Russians and the Koch brothers when it comes to business and protecting their own interests? Flag 80Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick 66hawk Gainesville, VA April 23, 2015 Sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this article to anything I care about. The right will feast on this, no doubt, but what I care about is policy positions. There is no smoking gun, only conspiracy theories. The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good, and apparently did nothing illegal. Whether it offends someone's personal ethical standards is an individual choice. Flag 206Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston April 23, 2015 Warren fans (I'm one too); please stop wasting your energy. She's doing well and doing good where she is, and she's utterly clear she is not going to run. I could wish she was running, just to shift the debate towards the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and give Hillary an excuse to cater to her better self. But with others, I am sick and tired of the Hillary bashing. We prefer shooting at each other to addressing the real villains in plain sight. The compromising and power brokering come with the job, and while I cannot like it, I don't think anyone outside that circle has a chance. I'd love to see universal required voting, short election season, TV ads banned or restrained. TV is laughing all the way to the bank while the rest of us lose. Flag 221Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick TDurk Rochester NY April 23, 2015 Reuters has just published that the Clinton Foundation must refile at least five years of tax returns to more accurately disclose contributions from foreign governments. We cannot squander the next presidential election to the republicans by the democrats running Ms Clinton for the highest office. Flag 116Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Bill is a trusted commenter Des Moines April 23, 2015 Is anyone surprised? The Clinton's have been surrounded by controversy since they came on the scene. Money always seems to be in the background. Although never proven guilty think of just a few items - Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, Walmart Board, Clinton Foundation donations. Sure the Republicans are always looking under rocks for issues but, unfortunately, they don't have to look very hard. Mrs. Clinton erased her emails after generously letting us see the ones she felt were relevant. How convenient. I wonder how many of the private emails dealt with Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton speeches, and government actions? Many commenters here love to make fun of the Republican candidates for the nomination. However, at least the public gets to see a range of views and personalities. On the Democratic side we are told there is only one person available - Hillary. They either have no bench or are frightened of the Clintons. Flag 105Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Tommy V Long Island April 23, 2015 The money flows to power. Eventually favors are received in a multitude of obscure ways. The power denies there's any quid pro quo. The powerless are left behind. It's true that the money went to philanthropic causes in this case, but that doesn't mean there's no payback. The American political system desperately needs transparency like this for all candidates. But in the end, who would be left to vote for? Flag 61Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick PB CNY April 23, 2015 Investigative reporting is what is needed in our politically secretive, corrupt and collusive country. Thanks New York Times for doing your job in an era when every effort has been made by the self-serving rich and their lackey politicians and Supreme Court Gang of 5 to eliminate transparency in our shamefully shady and shadowy world of undemocratic campaign politics. Am I surprised by what the NY Times found out about the Russian uranium company and the Clinton Foundation? No. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. How much evidence do we need that the Clintons think they are above the law and that rules are for everyone else. It is pretty clear that the Clintons are in politics not so much for what they can do for the country (repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA anyone?), but for what politics can do for them personally ($500K for a Hillary speech? Wow, that's a lot of money for someone who is not a good speech writer or speaker). The Clintons aren't the only politicians like this. But we Americans have higher expectations for our President than for our members of Congress. Democrats especially are expected to look out for everyday people, to be champions of good government, and not to be in the grips of and as tightly beholden to the wealthy 1% as the Republicans. Democratic Party: Please do not put all your eggs in the Hillary basket. Encourage other talented, experienced Democrats to get into the 2016 presidential race so the best Democrat can win. Flag 104Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick TiredOfLobbyists FL April 23, 2015 This story comes from the right wing Clinton Cash book. I'd be careful to read too much into it since it was written by someone who has a history of inaccurate statements and lies. Notice the NYT disclaimer... "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.” Flag 117Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Ed Honolulu April 23, 2015 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 won't say that she did not support the interests of donors, only that there is no proof. She's arranged for that, of course, by destroying her emails and the server they were on. However, we do have her word that she really cares about the interests of "everyday Americans." Is there any evidence for that? Or was it destroyed because it's "personal?" Flag 110Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick Pete New Jersey April 23, 2015 All this newest "revelation" does is reinforce the fact that the Democrats really need a "Plan B" rather than putting all of their eggs in the single basket of Hillary Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, she carries so much political baggage that she could single-handedly lose the 2016 elections, which the Democrats should be able to win on policy issues. And that "Plan B" really needs to be an electable candidate, not the often-mentioned, but probably too left-wing for the majority voting populace, Elizabeth Warren. Flag 83Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter NYT Pick lulu out there April 23, 2015 The Koch Bros. and their cohorts are buying the federal govt for $2 billion and you're worried about a couple of million? Flag 167Recommend Share this comment on FacebookShare this comment on Twitter Loading... Read More View all 1891 comments 1891 Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. The comments section is closed. To submit a letter to the editor for publication, write to letters@nytimes.com. All 1891 Readers’ Picks 1032 NYT Picks 45 newest Ideas. Ignited. 50% Off For 1 Year for one year. OK. Read most of it. I couldn't see where she used Clinton foundation money for personal gain. Was that in there? Did she take a huge salary or did the Clinton foundation donate to her campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 hours ago, revkevsdi said: OK. Read most of it. I couldn't see where she used Clinton foundation money for personal gain. Was that in there? Did she take a huge salary or did the Clinton foundation donate to her campaign. well she bill and the ugly kid are all on the board and get a paycheck they all use the shut out of the foundation jet the y use the shut out of the foundation apartments in manhatin the list is endless. but yeah owned on the payment so try for another swing and miss deflection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Ez ryder said: well she bill and the ugly kid are all on the board and get a paycheck they all use the shut out of the foundation jet the y use the shut out of the foundation apartments in manhatin the list is endless. but yeah owned on the payment so try for another swing and miss deflection They have a very high rating on Charity watch for their foundation. VS Trump he can't even show his foundation makes the donations the claimed. Really big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: They have a very high rating on Charity watch for their foundation. VS Trump he can't even show his foundation makes the donations the claimed. Really big difference. Did he fill the pockets of his foundation until they runeth over by granting favors and easing the passing of American assets to foreign entities while in a high US Federal G'ment position? Does "charity watch" research that too? Oh, hasn't Charity Watch been caught with their hand in the Clinton foundation cookie jar also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: They have a very high rating on Charity watch for their foundation. VS Trump he can't even show his foundation makes the donations the claimed. Really big difference. such a shame they are down sizing bigly because the donations and speaking fees are all dried up now that political favors are off the table. weird ha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ez ryder said: such a shame they are down sizing bigly because the donations and speaking fees are all dried up now that political favors are off the table. weird ha? Are you saying that you didn't vote for her because of her Russian Nuclear connections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 9 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: They have a very high rating on Charity watch for their foundation. VS Trump he can't even show his foundation makes the donations the claimed. Really big difference. yes there is a big diff in getting payoffs for political favors while simultaneously totally fucking the people who they pretend to help . (look up Haiti then tell us about the good work) and actual charity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Are you saying that you didn't vote for her because of her Russian Nuclear connections? I am saying I did not vote for her because she is one of the most manipulative back stabbing power hungry self serving evil cunts that satin has sent up to do his bidding just so he did not have to deal with her emasculating him anymore 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Are you saying that you didn't vote for her because of her Russian Nuclear connections? Naw, more because she is more of a POS than Trump, not to mention the entertainment factor of watching liberals like you meltdown, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 3 hours ago, Ez ryder said: yes there is a big diff in getting payoffs for political favors while simultaneously totally fucking the people who they pretend to help . (look up Haiti then tell us about the good work) and actual charity What are your thoughts on the American Red Cross? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.