Clinton Cash’ author demolishes Hillary’s self-defense (lies and collusion WRT US uranium sellout)

NY POST.COM ^ | 6/22/15 | Peter Schweizer

[Liz]

Hillary was asked why her State Dept greenlit the transfer of 20% of strategic US uranium to the Russians. Clinton claimed she had no involvement..."...it wasn’t something the secretary of state did.” Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity for these reasons:

First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, including mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million. Giustra and Bill Clinton frequently globetrot, and formed the Clinton-Giustra Initiative.

Asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow, Hillary offered a blurry evasion. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.” Yet, the Times confirms the gargantuan fee was pocketed, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.” Plus----at the time Hillary’s State Dept was considering the Uranium One deal, Uranium One’s then-chief Ian Telfer donated $2.35 million that the Clinton foundation kept hidden. Hillary notes that “nine US government agencies signed off on that deal.”.....but she was the only US agency signoff w/ $145 million from uranium shareholders.

Hillary wishes these questions would vanish. But that’s unlikely. The RNC finds that the US uranium transfer is “the most persuasive message tested” and one that “severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.” American voters are left to ponder Hillary's involvement in US uranium now in Vladimir Putin's hands: She's either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest.

[silverleaf]

o.m.g.

[MeshugeMikey]

She’s either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest.

In hillary’s case..why would we necessarily need to see the deadly combo of hillarys damaged cognitive functioning and her biggest character flaw as a dichotomy?

[Liz]

At the lavish Clinton Global Initiative event hosted by a king in Marrakesh, Bill Clinton was asked why he isn't defending the Clinton Foundation from increased scrutiny.

The question came from billionaire supporter Mo Ibrahim: "I opened the newspaper and I was shocked to see these attacks on the foundation." The billionaire continued, " What is this money for? What have you done with it?"

"I just work here," Clinton responded. "I don't know."

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

=============================================

So let's get this straight. Ignoramus Bill Clinton got on a plane w/ mining tycoon, Frank Giustra, that just happened to be flying to far-off Kazakhstan. But both brain-dead Clinton and dumbbell Giustra had no idea the place had uranium mines.

So, just by chance, dopey Clinton met w/ the Kazhak dictator. It was strictly "dumb luck" that Clinton knew Kahzak govt approvals were needed.

Here's the ignoramus Bill Clinton in Kazakhstan--
lavi$hly prai$ing the reigning dictator who then signed
off on the mine deal....... b/c he's just a nice guy.

As Judge Judy might say to Bill Clinton:

Tell me about the conversation you had w/ uranium businessman Frank Giustra about uranium mines in Kazkhstan.

How did you know Giustra was looking to get govt approvals to buy uranium mines?

How did you know about getting govt approvals?

What did you say to Giustra? What did he say to you?

[Pietro]

I agree, she’s both incompetent and dishonest.

[MeshugeMikey]

yes indeed..and..shes too incompetent to be successfully dishonest, and too dishonest to admit to her stunning incompetence!

[sauropod]

bfl

[ArGee]

She's either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest.

Or both.

[ArGee]

OK, you said it first, but I said it shorter.

[MeshugeMikey]

OK, you said it shorter, but I said it twice....’-}

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3303200/posts?page=6#6

[GOPJ]

Asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow, Hillary offered a blurry evasion. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.” Yet, the Times confirms the gargantuan fee was pocketed, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.”

I almost pinged you to this thread... I see you're already here...

[Liz]

Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations hidden in Canada
Breirbart.com / 4/29/15 / By Joshua Green and Richard Rubin

The co-founder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate is revealing new details about the charity's donors in an effort to counter allegations in the New York Times and in “Clinton Cash.” ..... prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic given how closely these two worlds overlap.

Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” Giustra says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year.

The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”

It hasn’t. Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.

On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”

Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names.

"There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them." Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."--SNIP--

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

[Liz]

Hillary wishes these questions would vanish. But that’s unlikely. The RNC finds that the US uranium transfer is “the most persuasive message tested” and one that “severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.” American voters are left to ponder Hillary's involvement in US uranium now in Vladimir Putin's hands: She's either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest.

[McGruff]

“She’s either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest.”

I’ll take “deeply dishonest” for 1 million dollars Alex.

[hoosiermama]

Or both !

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks for the pings!

[GOPJ]

bump to the top

[thouworm]

related thread: (see post 9 in thread for Clinton spokesman’s response - lol)

Hillary Clinton facing questions over involvement in Uranium One sale
WMUR 9 (ABC) ^ | June 23, 2015 | By Josh McElveen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3303445/posts

full video interview (min 2-5 for uranium deal)

http://www.wmur.com/politics/closeup/closeup-hillary-clinton-discusses-early-stages-of-2016-campaign/33592428

[sickoflibs]

RE:”Hillary wishes these questions would vanish. But that’s unlikely. The RNC finds that the US uranium transfer is “the most persuasive message tested” and one that “severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.” American voters are left to ponder Hillary's involvement in US uranium now in Vladimir Putin's hands: She's either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest.”

Hillary's response is that Republicans haven't produced a single email of her’s showing a quid pro quo on that deal.
And she she says she turned over all of them,