Investigate Hillary's Uranium One Collusion with Russia

Even if, as the likes of Charles Krauthammer insist, Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer invited in by President Barack Hussein Obama and his Attorney General Loretta Lynch is “empirical evidence” of collusion between Team Trump and Russia, the correct answer is so what?

Collusion in not a crime. Exchanging government favors for donations would be a crime, and neither Dr. Krauthammer nor anyone else has provided any evidence that any favor was granted as a result of that meeting, or that the Trump campaign benefited in any way from the meeting.

One cannot say the same thing about Hillary Clinton and her role in the Uranium One deal with Russia. Clinton played a pivotal role in the Uranium One deal which ended up giving Russian interests control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a federal crime.

This gambit by Bill Clinton (meddling in a foreign election) got the Russian uranium scheme going. Bill's calculated handshake was a bonanza for the Kazahk president's re-election. Nazarbayev responded in kind and signed-off on the initial phase of the US uranium assets takeover.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev greets former
president Clinton (L) in Almaty on September 6, 2005.

NOTE Kazakh is remembered as the last state to peel off from the USSR.

CIRCA 2015 A Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter claims that former President Bill Clinton falsely denied hosting a meeting with Kazakh officials when she tried to write a story that involved his foundation several years ago.

Jo Becker, who works on the newspaper's investigative desk, said Clinton only confirmed the meeting took place after she informed him there were photographs.

Clinton's role in a deal that involved Kazakhstan, the Russian government, and a man (Giustra) who donated millions to the president's charitable foundation were detailed in a story Becker published on Thursday.

That article revisited some of her earlier reporting and included information from the upcoming book "Clinton Cash," which is generating widespread headlines amid a flurry of reports suggesting it will raise serious questions about Clinton's family foundation.

The donor in question is Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra, a longtime friend of the former president who has given tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation in the past few years. (A couple of hours after the NYT story was published, Giustra issued a defiant statement. We've included that below.)

Becker initially wrote about the February 2007 meeting between Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the state-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom in 2008. The gathering took place at Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York.

"When I first contacted both the Clinton foundation — Mr. Clinton's spokesman — and Mr. Giustra, they denied any such meeting ever took place," Becker recalled in footage aired by Fox News on Thursday. However, Becker said Clinton and Giustra both changed their stories after she confronted them with evidence to the contrary.

"And then when we told them, 'Well we already talked to the head of Kazatomprom, who not only told us all about the meeting, but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home in Chappaqua, and that he proudly displayed on his office wall.' They then acknowledged that yes, the meeting had taken place," Becker continued in the television interview.

The purpose of the meeting, then Kazatomprom President Moukhtar Dzhakishev told The Times, was to discuss Kazakhstan potentially buying a 10% stake in Westinghouse, a US nuclear company. Becker's 2008 story also noted one of Giustra's companies secured a deal to buy uranium deposits from Kazatomprom in 2005.

That agreement was made after Clinton accompanied Giustra on a trip to Kazakhstan. During the trip, Giustra and Clinton met with Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Clinton issued a public statement praising the Kazakh leader despite his questionable, antidemocratic record. The Times called the praise a "propaganda coup" for Nazarbayev. (he later "won relection" w/ an unbelievable 90% of the vote)

"Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle," wrote Becker and another reporter, Don Van Natta.

A spokesperson for the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership told Business Insider they are "working on a formal statement" in response to a request for comment on Thursday. Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership is an initiative of the Clinton Foundation that was cofounded by Clinton and Giustra in 2007. A Clinton Foundation spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-reporter-clinton-lied-about-meeting-2015-48/25

From https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/grassley-to-department-of-justice_-cfius-and-uranium - 2 years ago

Page 1

June 30, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Lynch:

On April 23, The New York Times reported on details regarding the Clinton
Foundation’s ties to a number of investors involved in a business transaction that resulted in the
acquisition of Uranium One, owner of U.S. based uranium assets, by Atomredmetzoloto
(ARMZ), a subsidiary of Rosatom, a Russian government owned company. The transaction
raised a number of national security concerns because it effectively ceded 20% of U.S. uranium
production capacity to the Russian government.1 Due to that foreign involvement, a review of
the transaction was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS), whose membership includes the Secretary of State and of which Treasury is the chair.
In addition, during critical stages of the acquisition approval, interested parties made large
donations – some in the millions of dollars – to the Clinton Foundation while Ms. Hillary
Clinton held the position of Secretary of State. When millions of dollars flow to decision
makers who have substantial discretion to provide support for or against approval of
controversial transactions, public confidence in the integrity of the process requires a
commitment to transparency and responsiveness to oversight inquiries.

Clinton Foundation Accepts Multiple Donations from Interested Parties in Deal

In light of the gravity of the decision to allow a Russian takeover of almost a quarter of
U.S. uranium assets, it is in the public interest to determine the facts and circumstances of the
transaction, including any potential donations that could have influenced the CFIUS review
process. The purpose of CFIUS is to ensure that national security is not undermined by
transactions that result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person.

1 Wilson Andrews, “Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover,” THE NEW YORK TIMES (April 22,

2015); Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” THE NEW YORK TIMES
(April 23, 2015). See also, Uranium One to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 29, 2013. Accessible at
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1304/ML13043A505.pdf

Page 2

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
June 30, 2015
Page 2 of 4

The timing of donations to the Clinton Foundation raises the appearance of potential

influence in CFIUS’s review process. According to The New York Times, in September 2005,
Mr. Frank Giustra won a uranium deal in Kazakhstan for UrAsia, his company at the time.2 The
deal was cut days after he visited the country with President Bill Clinton and after that deal in
2006, Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.3 UrAsia eventually merged
with a South African company and became Uranium One.

Reports further indicate that between 2008 and 2010, Uranium One and former UrAsia
investors donated $8.65 million to the Clinton Foundation.4 During this period of time, Uranium
One’s legal hold on the Kazakhstan-based uranium deposits was in doubt. Allegedly, Uranium
One executives contacted U.S. Embassy officials in Kazakhstan to help ensure the validity of
their mining licenses.5 According to The New York Times, the State Department cable explaining
the circumstances was copied to Secretary Clinton, among other individuals.6 In 2009, when the
validity of the mining licenses was at issue, the Chairman of Uranium One, Mr. Ian Telfer,
donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation via his family charity called the Fernwood
Foundation.7 In the same year, ARMZ acquired a 17% stake in Uranium One and the parties
sought an initial CFIUS review.8

In June 2010, Rosatom, via ARMZ, sought majority ownership in Uranium One.
According to news reports, Mr. Telfer donated $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation during this
crucial time.9 In total, Mr. Telfer donated over $2 million through 2013.10 In addition, in June
2010, President Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia, funded by a Russian
investment bank that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock and also reportedly had ties to
the Kremlin.11 In October 2010, CFIUS approved Rosatom’s plan to acquire a controlling 51%
stake and, in January 2013, Rosatom purchased all remaining Uranium One shares.12

If the news reports are true, Secretary Clinton’s involvement in the decision-making
process needs to be more closely examined given that the Clinton Foundation was accepting
donations from parties who had a stake in the outcome of the uranium deal.

Similar Deals Denied by CFIUS

In contrast to the Rosatom deal, similar transactions have been scuttled by CFIUS. For
example, in December 2009, Northwest Nonferrous International Investment Corp, a subsidiary
of China’s largest aluminum producer, attempted to acquire a U.S. based mining company.13

2 Wilson Andrews, “Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover,” THE NEW YORK TIMES (April 22,

2015); Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” THE NEW YORK TIMES
(April 23, 2015).
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Uranium One to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 29, 2013. Accessible at
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1304/ML13043A505.pdf
13 James K. Jackson, “The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),” Congressional Research Service
(March 6, 2014). p. 9.

Page 3

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
June 30, 2015
Page 3 of 4
Reportedly, Treasury objected to the acquisition because the U.S. company, Firstgold, owned
property near U.S. military bases.14 In June 2010, a Chinese company withdrew its proposed
acquisition of a fiber optic and solar panel company, Emcore, due to regulatory concerns.15 In
another acquisition, a Chinese firm invested in Ralls Corp., operator of a wind farm project.16
CFIUS initiated contact with Ralls, reviewed the acquisition and recommended that Ralls cease
operations until the investigation was completed due to concerns the US Navy had regarding the
placement of wind turbines near or within restricted drone testing airspace.17 Eventually,
President Obama issued an executive order requiring Ralls to divest itself of the wind farm
project due to a determined threat to national security.18

It is clear that some potential acquisitions have caused substantial concern within the
upper echelons of government to such a degree that the acquisition was denied. Indeed,
Secretary Clinton shares a concern about foreign governments, such as China, acquiring U.S.
tech firms and was recently quoted by C-SPAN:

A lot of foreign companies particularly Chinese companies, but not exclusively, are
looking to buy American companies, particularly with advanced technology. And, it’s
very unfortunate.19

Here, a Russian government controlled company was able to acquire 20% of U.S. uranium
production capacity, yet the transaction was approved – and apparently approved in record
speed. According to a letter sent by Uranium One to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Uranium One and ARMZ jointly filed notice with CFIUS in the first week of August 2010
regarding the transaction.20 In return, on October 22, 2010, CFIUS informed Uranium One and
ARMZ that “there were no unresolved national security concerns regarding these transactions
under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended.”21 The amount of time
between filing and final resolution is less than the 75-90 day review that, according to statute, is
generally the timeline.22

It is unclear why this uranium deal was approved when other deals with similar national
security implications were not.

Conflicts of Interest

The facts and circumstances of this matter raise a number of important questions
regarding possible conflicts of interest and potential quid pro quos.
According to the Office of Government Ethics, federal law requires executive branch
employees be disqualified from matters that have a direct and predictable effect on the

14 Id.

15 Id.
16 Id. at p. 10.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Hillary Clinton Roundtable in New Hampshire, C-SPAN (May 22, 2015). Accessible at http://www.c-
span.org/video/?326207-1/hillary-clinton-roundtable-smuttynose-brewery-new-hampshire.
20 Uranium One to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 29, 2013. Accessible at
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1304/ML13043A505.pdf.
21 Id. Of note, Section 721 is codified in 50 U.S.C. App. 2170.
22 50 U.S.C. App. 2170. See also, James K. Jackson, “The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),”
Congressional Research Service (March 6, 2014).

Page 4

The Honorable Loretta Lynch
June 30, 2015
Page 4 of 4
employee’s own financial interests or if persons or organizations with which the employee is
affiliated, such as a spouse, have a financial interest, unless the employee first obtains an
individual waiver or a regulatory exemption applies.23 Notably, the Clinton Foundation includes
the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative which, according to the memorandum of
understanding between the Clinton Foundation and Obama Administration, “…works with the
mining industry, local and national governments, and other non-governmental organizations to
enable sustainable growth in countries where the mining sector plays a significant role.”24

The risk of conflicts with Secretary Clinton at State was so great that the Clinton
Foundation and the Obama Administration entered into a memorandum of understanding which,
in part, required donations to be disclosed. However, millions of dollars in donations to the
Clinton Foundation from executives with an interest in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction
were not disclosed, breaching the agreement.25
Accordingly, please answer the following:
1. What role did the Department of Justice play in the Uranium One/ARMZ
transaction? Please explain in detail.
2. Please list the Department of Justice personnel that were involved in the Uranium
One/ARMZ transaction.
3. Did Secretary Clinton’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation require her to recuse
herself from the CFIUS’s review of the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? If so, did she
recuse herself? If the relationship did not require recusal, please explain why not.
4. Was Attorney General Holder briefed by Department of Justice personnel regarding the
Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? If so, by whom and how many times? If not, why
not?

Please number your responses according to their corresponding questions. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation with this request. Please respond no later than July 16, 2015. If
you have questions, contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

23 18 U.S.C. § 208.

24 Memorandum of Understanding, December 18, 2008. Accessible at
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/understanding.pdf
25 Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” THE NEW YORK TIMES
(April 23, 2015).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.