BRKG Clinton Foundation "Donations", Uranium and Russia.

H

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I tried to cut and past the NY Times article that's now turning the heat up to "11" on this but my link "choked"......Also directly related to this thread.....

GE CEO Will Not Release Clinton Emails
Started by Buick Electra‎, Yesterday 05:38 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?467327-GE-CEO-Will-Not-Release-Clinton-Emails

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-u-s-uranium-output-to-reward-donors-company/

BOOK: Hillary Gave Russian Govt. Half of U.S. Uranium Output to Reward Donor’s Company

by Breitbart News22 Apr 2015
Comments 497

Editor’s Note: This story first appeared in the Wall Street Journal. We reprint in part here.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department was part of a panel that approved the sale of one of America’s largest uranium mines at the same time a foundation controlled by the seller’s chairman was making donations to a Clinton family charity, records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show.

The $610 million sale of 51% of Uranium One to a unit of Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency, was approved in 2010 by a U.S. federal committee that assesses the security implications of foreign investments. The State Department, which Mrs. Clinton then ran, is one of its members.

Between 2008 and 2012, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project of the Clinton Foundation, received $2.35 million from the Fernwood Foundation, a family charity run by Ian Telfer, chairman of Uranium One before its sale, according to Canada Revenue Agency records.

The donations were first reported in “Clinton Cash,” a new book by Peter Schweizer, an editor-at-large at a conservative news website, about the financial dealings of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. A copy of the book, set to be released next month, was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The book is to be published by HarperCollins, a division of News Corp., which also publishes the Journal.
 
H

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Fox News is all over this right now.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/...-russian-efforts-to-control-uranium-supplies/

Clinton Foundation tied to Russian efforts to control uranium supplies

posted at 8:01 am on April 23, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

I’m not sure if this is a “bombshell” report from the New York Times this morning or if it’s just more of the same old same old when it comes to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The Paper of Record has been digging into more details from Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book, Clinton Cash, and finds that there was a lot of money changing hands between interests in Russia, Canada and the United states at a time when Russia was moving to try to gain control of a significant portion of the world’s uranium supplies. (It’s something they seem to have been spectacularly successful at, by the way, since they now own roughly a quarter of the total resources.)

At The Week, Peter Weber summarizes some of the top lines from this extremely complicated story.


From 2009 to 2013, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, a Russian company owned by state atomic energy agency Rosatom slowly took over a Canadian company that controlled about 20 percent of America’s uranium deposits, The New York Times details in a long exposé. At the same time, people connected to the Canadian company, Uranium One, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, and some of those donations weren’t disclosed on the foundation’s public donor list, The Times reports.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, the Rosatom’s final deal to take a 51 stake Uranium One had to be approved by the cabinet-level Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which included Clinton’s office along with several other cabinet secretaries.

When I said some of the top lines above I was referring to the fact that the Rosatom / Uranium One deals are burying the lede to a certain extent. There are a couple of specifics in the Gray Lady piece which scream for a bit more attention but don’t show up until many paragraphs down in the article. Uranium One’s chairman gave the Clinton Foundation $2.35M dollars which was not reported to the Obama administration by Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State, though there was an agreement in place that all such donations were to be accounted for. And lest you think all of the cash was flowing to the charitable work of the foundation, there was this:


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.

That’s a half million dollars for one speech from a Russian investment bank. Pretty good work if you can get it, but the timing is certainly suspicious.

The problem with all of this is the same as it’s been since the first of these stories began cropping up. It’s extremely difficult to identify any sort of direct quid pro quo as you pull on the individual threads of the story. In these deals, money was moving around from hand to hand in multiple countries with the end result being approval of deals which the State Department could say were going to be approved anyway. And when the money is flowing into a charitable organization with Hillary Clinton’s name on it rather than her own private bank account it adds on another layer of obfuscation. That’s why it seems to me that the speech payment to Bill (who shares family resources with Hillary) is the more startling story than the other donations. Further, if there was an “agreement” in place that all such donations be reported and Hillary’s foundation failed to do so, that’s also more significant than the actual cash. Does a failure to report constitute a violation of any laws? I’m guessing it won’t, but it still stinks to High Heaven.

Also, while I’m sure we’ll have more on this later today, there’s a parallel story breaking at the same time. Somebody noticed that during three of the years when the foundation was taking in all of these foreign donations, they reported to the IRS that they had received zero such government donations. The foundation has said that those were “accounting errors.”

I’m pretty sure Al Capone said the same thing.
 
Sacajawea

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
It's all one big "good old boys" club. It always has been, probably always will be. And those activities are what used to be called "backroom deals"... not entirely, technically "illegal"... but not the most ethical or height of propriety, either.

Lots of looking the other way, "I know nothing; I can't recall; that was handled by subordinates" plausible deniability.

It's getting a little old and wearing a lot thin.
 
marsh

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Not a new trend. Billy boy had done it previously:

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/indocoal.htm

The Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff?

By: Sarah Foster

When the President signed the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, his action placed the area off limits to mineral extraction and development.

The New York Times reported that the monument encloses the largest coal field in the nation, the Kaiparowitz Plateau, which contains at least 7 billion tons of coal worth over $1 TRILLION.

Kentucky-based company Andalux Resources, which holds leases on 3,400 acres in the area, was planning to open a huge operation (underground, not strip mining) that would have generated 1,000 jobs, $1 million in annual revenue for Kane County, and at least $10 million a year in state and federal taxes, according to the New York Times. Folks living in the area wore black arm bands the day o the signing - but Clinton didn't see them. He chose to make his announcement in a neighboring state. WHY?

Why did he do it? Why lock up $1 trillion worth of coal?

An obvious explanation is he was hoping to secure the environmentalist vote. Though that was no doubt part of his reasoning, he had surely achieved such an objective earlier this summer when he declared the huge area outside Yellowstone National Park a World Heritage Area. Let'' look further.

In the weeks prior to the past election, revelations surfaced almost daily regarding donations from foreign sources to the Democratic Party and Clinton's past campaigns. At the center of the controversy was another set of people to whom Clinton owes a few favors: the Lippo Group, a powerful $5 billion Indonesian conglomerate, founded and owned by the Riady family who, it turned out, had raised and funneled millions of dollars into campaign coffers.

Democrats attempted to downplay the allegations of impropriety. Even if the Clinton campaign and the Party did receive illegal contribution- which is denied -what, they demanded, had Clinton done for Lippo Group, the Riadys, or Indonesia that really affects this country adversely? Good question. The Payoff

Clinton's announcement at the Grand Canyon was wrapped in political correctness. "Mining jobs are good jobs, and mining is important to our national security - but we can't have mines everywhere, and we shouldn't have mines that threaten national treasures," he told his sycophantic audience.

But coal is not only important for our nation's security. More importantly, at the present time it is the most cost-effective fuel for the electric plants that supply our homes and industries with light, heat and power.

Moreover, the coal at Kaiporowitz Plateau is a kind of coal that is not found "everywhere." It is very low sulfur, low ash - hence, low polluting - coal, the kind in high demand for power plants, such as one being designed for Ensenada, Mexico. That megawatt giant, presently on the drawing boards, will supply electricity across northern Baja, an area plagued by brownouts.

Had it not been taken off the world market, the logical source of coal for the Baja plant would be the Kaiparowitz Plateau. Once mined it could be transported by rail to the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles, then by barge to Ensenada. Thanks to Clinton, there will be no exporting of Kaiparowitz coal, which means the facility's procurement people will have to look elsewhere for clean non-polluting fuel.

Only two other sources

Besides the Kaiparowitz Plateau, there are only two other known locations in the world where comparable coal is found in sufficient quantities to make mining it worthwhile. Colombia in South America is one, but it'll be years before the necessary mining and shipping infrastructure is built.

The other? You got it. Indonesia.

That's right - the coal fields of South Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia. Big plans are online for its development. Indonesia has been a source of coal for over a century, but the coal varies sharply in terms of quality. Recently, however, a coal that is very low in sulfur has been discovered. A number of coal companies are already there, and it's a good bet Lippo Group money is involved. A major company is Adaro Indonesia, of which 20 percent is owned by the Spanish government, 50 percent by New Hope Corp., an Australian firm.

Envirocoal

According to the 1994 report Mineral Industry of Indonesia, by the bureau of Mines, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Adaro aims to produce 15 million tones by the year 2000 of what they call Envirocoal - a reference to its quality. Adaro has for several years anticipated the U.S. as a major market, and has one committed purchaser already: Tampa Electric Co., which signed a long-term contract to purchase 400,000 tones a year from the Indonesian firm.

To handle the shipping of the increased production, new shipping terminals are being constructed. One huge one is on a neighboring island at a cost of $1 billion. The P.T. Indonesia bulk Terminal, as the megaport is called, is owned 50 percent by New How, and 50 percent by "Indonesian interests" (the Lippo Group perhaps), according to the Interior Dept. report.

Massive coal deposits, massive shipping facilities - that spells massive investment, massive contracts. This isn't some small-0is-beautiful eco-operation. We're talking real money here, and it's hard to imagine that the "Lippopotamus" is not in on the action. But even if Lippo's not directly involved, the Indonesian government, with which Lippo has a cozy relationship, certainly does. So too will the various foreign investors and mining companies to whom the Indonesian government has extended an open invitation.

Winners and Losers

In any game there are winners and losers, and there are Americans in the first category - the investors who put their money in overseas coal mining, producers of natural gas, which the administration supports wholeheartedly.

Plus, there's a deal between a Little Rock firm and Lippo. According to the ENERGY ECONOMIST for Sept., 1994, Entergy Group of Little Rock, in partnership with the Lippo Group of Hong Kong, signed a memorandum of understanding with the North China Power Corporation for the cooperative management and expansion of the $1 billion 1,200 megawatt coal-fired Daton 2 power plan in Shanxi Province. Isn't that interesting And where do you think the coal will come from?

The Democrats' question: What has Clinton done for Indonesia that harms the United States? The answer is - with a stroke of his pen he wiped out the only significant competition to Indonesian coal interests in the world market before it even got started, a move that at the same time relegates this country to importer status. His edict will force us into eventual dependency on foreign producers of coal as we are presently dependent on overseas sources for oil - an unconscionable situation considering that we have abundant deposits of both commodities.

The President has given our children a legacy of continued energy dependence, marked by contrived shortages and crises, the full impact of which will be sharply felt in the years to come.
 
marsh

marsh

On TB every waking moment
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/th...tion-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
Dinesh D'Souza / News /

The Federalist: The Constitution Bans Hillary's Foreign Government Payola

Originally published at The Federalist.

The Washington Post reported last week that the tax-exempt foundation run by Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted money from seven foreign governments while Hillary served as U.S. Secretary of State (it’s unclear how much foreign money the organization accepted while Hillary was a U.S. Senator). Super shady, right? It’s worse than that, though, because Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution actually bans foreign payola for U.S. officials.

The constitutional ban on foreign cash payments to U.S. officials is known as the Emoluments Clause and originated from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the U.S. by paying off U.S. government officials. Here’s the text of the clause:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Various statutes and rules have been promulgated to effect the constitutional ban on foreign cash. The U.S. House of Representatives bans cash payments from foreign governments. The U.S. Senate, of which Hillary was a member from 2001 to 2009, also bans cash payments from foreign governments. And the U.S. State Department bans cash payments from foreign governments. Let’s take a look at the specific language from the State Dept.:

Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.

Does a foreign government have business with the U.S. State Department? Is a foreign government generally seeking official action by the U.S. State Department? You better believe it.

Oman, Qatar (which owns the Al-Jazeera network), Kuwait, and Algeria all funneled cash to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. Each country had business pending before the U.S. government. And it turns out that Hillary even met with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from the Algerian government:

Clinton met with the president of Algeria during a 2012 visit to the country.

A State Department spokesman referred questions about the ethics-office reviews to the charity. Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, declined to comment.

Besides Algeria, a number of the other countries that donated to the foundation during Clinton’s time at the State Department also lobbied the U.S. government during that time.

Qatar, for instance, spent more than $5.3 million on registered lobbyists while Clinton was secretary of state, according to the Sunlight Foundation. The country’s lobbyists were reported monitoring anti-terrorism activities and efforts to combat violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. Qatar has also come under criticism from some U.S. allies in the region that have accused it of supporting Hamas and other militant groups. Qatar has denied the allegations.

The official Team Clinton defense is that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives?

“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.

Now, because the Clintons are Clintons (“It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is…”), their fallback defense will likely be that they didn’t technically run afoul of the law. After all, Hillary didn’t officially take control of the foundation until after she left the State Dept. And the Constitution doesn’t ever say that foreign governments can’t bribe the impeached and disbarred spouses of government officials. Sure, the Constitution says current officials can’t accept dirty cash from foreign government, but it never says that jetset spouses who fly to sex slave islands with convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to collect under-the-table foreign cash.

That defense makes sense if you think the Founders opposed the practice of foreign governments directly bribing U.S. officials, but wholeheartedly supported the practice of foreign governments indirectly bribing U.S. officials by paying off their spouses. Are we to believe that Hillary was so divorced from the goings-on of the foundation that she was just randomly given official control of it (including having her first name added to the tax-exempt organization’s official name) immediately after leaving the State Department? Are we to believe that poor Hillary just had no clue what was going on at her family’s tax-exempt slush fund?

Please. “I did not have fiscal relations with that government” isn’t going to fly this time. There is most definitely a controlling legal authority here, and it’s the U.S. Constitution.

The latest foreign payola scandal is just the latest chapter in the Clinton corruption novel. They played games with dirty cash in Arkansas. They played games with dirty cash literally in the White House. And now we know they were playing games with foreign cash while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution knew what could happen if U.S. officials put cash before their own country, so they banned the practice.

In other words, the Founders were Ready for Hillary.

----------------
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02...ally-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top