In 2015, The New York Times stated “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.”

The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states “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.”

Vox, POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.

Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obama’s administration to approve the deal.

Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?

Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clinton’s speech at a Moscow bank?

There’s absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.

Also, nothing said at Trump’s press conference refutes the fact Uranium One officials donated millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia.

After Trump’s recent press conference, millions of Clinton loyalists gleefully read a POLITIFACT  piece titled Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium.

That POLITIFACT piece references another POLITIFACT article titled In a nuclear claim, Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton ‘gave up’ one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia.

Both articles rate the truthfulness of Trump’s accusation that Clinton “gave up” (or was solely responsible) for the uranium sale.

As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in today’s neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.

Frist, Clinton didn’t even intentionally use a private server, so she didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself.

The issue POLITIFACT, Vox and others conveniently circumvent is the New York Times quote stating “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.”

Did millions of dollars to her Foundation influence Clinton?

Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last year’s AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to America’s Secretary of State:

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

If you replace Clinton with Trump in the story above, how would Washington Post journalists react? 85 people give $156 million to Trump’s foundation and nobody questions the transfer of money?

This story (if Trump were the subject) would spark outrage today. Instead, Vox and others defended Clinton and denied any possible conflict to interest.

As for the uranium deal (approved under an Obama administration that eventually sanctioned Russia for alleged election tampering), it’s similar to Clinton’s weapons deal scandal reported by the International Business Times. Read the International Business Times article titled Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

This all gets back to the POLITIFACT articles.

POLITIFACT states “The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally.”

And… this is supposed to be a good thing?

The New York Times states “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.”

Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clinton’s State Department that approved a deal bringing “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

President Obama’s administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

If Putin is America’s great adversary, why did Clinton’s State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?

Why didn’t President Obama veto the deal?

Why did Uranium One officials feel the need to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale?

This blind spot within American media is the reason Trump won the White House. Clinton engages in an overt controversy, and the American press focuses solely on the semantics within Trump’s accusation. With Clinton, it’s never using a private server to hide information. Everything is merely a coincidence, or there’s enough semantic leeway for plausible deniability. Yoga emails were deleted, not Clinton Foundation emails.

As for the billions lost in Haiti linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hatian-born journalist Daddy Cherry demands the Clintons “Return Haiti’s Earthquake Billions.”

Congratulations, vigilant and daring American press, whose only goal is to defeat Trump. You’ve again focused on Trump’s wild accusations, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Once again, America is playing Trump’s game (fact checking based on semantics, as opposed to the overall picture) and refusing to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for a genuine conflict of interest. This paved the way for Trump’s recent conflicts of interest.

Sure, Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium.

Trump is wrong about Clinton “giving” the uranium to Putin.

Also, it’s 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, that’s true.

There, feel better now DNC?

You shouldn’t if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynn’s phone calls, or Trump’s contacts with Russia.

I highlight the impact of the Obama administration’s uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:

Is it America’s national interest to have “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”?

In the McCarthy era atmosphere of today’s Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?

For every fact-checking piece mocking Trump’s claims, simply reread the original NYT story. The New York Times explains the possible quid pro quo arrangement in a now legendary piece by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:

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.

Again, would this be condoned if Trump’s foundation had accepted millions from uranium one?

Also, why were Uranium One donations “not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors”?

There’d be widespread calls for impeachment if this happened with Trump, and people would be right.

The Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars, as the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of Uranium One. Uranium One was already owned by the Kremlin, while the Podesta Group was lobbying on behalf of Uranium One. The Obama administration sold U.S. uranium to a company that was essentially owned by Putin.

The fact 9 agencies had to sign off on the deal is irrelevant. If Clinton’s State Department, under Obama approved the deal, this shows Hillary Clinton was never worried about Russian aggression or influence.

Uranium One officials felt the need to donate to Clinton’s Foundation during the uranium deal, and that brings up the question of Clinton’s influence on Obama’s administration.

Most importantly, the Clinton Foundation coincidentally shut down its Global Initiative, shortly after Clinton lost, and no longer accepts foreign donations.

Why did Bill and Hillary shut down the Clinton Global Initiative?

Could it be that the Clintons no longer have access to give to donors?

Or is it only Trump who has conflicts of interest?

The Clinton Foundation did accept millions of dollars from Uranium One during the sale, approved under Obama’s administration, while the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of company owned by Russia. In addition, the Panama Papers reveal Clinton’s ties to the Kremlin. Therefore, it’s a fact Clinton and President Obama presided over the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia. If the fact Uranium One officials donated millions amid the deal doesn’t bother you, then there’s a job waiting for you at Vox.

Liked it? Take a second to support Counter Propa on Patreon!

There are 19 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  1. Why is the N.Y. Times not doing any follow up articles on uranium one ?? Are they afraid of a little rating’s spike???

    1. The “failing New York Times” might just redeem itself a good bit if they did do a follow up story and stand up to the criticism by their colleagues. After all, it’s their credibility that is either further trashed or restored by this. But I venture to say that the idea of coming across as defending Trump is going to mean that ain’t gonna happen.

  2. Has anyone investigated your claim that it is “her foundation,” therefore she put all the money straight into her pocket for shopping?
    Do you feel better about yourself having established an insinuation as the main proof of your contention?
    Is it that all you have for Hillary is hatred, or is it that your case is so weak that you are FORCED to claim that it is her Foundation, after all, it has her name on it.
    Your proof is that over 5 years millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation. “Her foundation.” Those of us who have contributed to it know that you specifically state what you want the money to go for. Do you have THOSE “papers that prove they were giving Hillary money for uranium?”
    Did “her foundation” get any donations from any Republicans? Should they also now be crucified?
    Your lament that you’re the only person still shoveling manure looking for the pony says more about your accusations than your accusation do.
    She lost. Get over it. Move on. You still won’t get a conviction. Not one. Because there’s nothing there except through your tilted squint.
    Have a good day. The Clinton Hatred Industry just shot itself in the foot. Go watch Lee Marvin in “Monte Walsh.” Your Clinton hating days are at an end.
    Unless of course Chelsea is a member of the conspiracy, after all, her MAIDEN name is on it.

      1. I think you have it backwards….. are you not familiar with the fact that Clinton’s have more friends and associates who have been murdered than any other politician.
        Simple question to ask:
        “how many people have you worked with in the past, have been murdered?”

    1. Maybe you need to “Get over it” Kevin. Hillary is pretty old and her health was obviously failing during the campaign …

      The only one that can truly know Hillary’s heart is God … though people can guess about her heart.

      Your comment to H. A. Goodman “Your Clinton hating days are at an end” has been noted.

      Also noted is your comment “Those of us who have contributed to [the Clinton Foundation].”

      Don’t be too confused about why Hillary is under attack. She attacked others from time to time. I desire that Hillary repent of her own attacks on everyone from Trump supporters to Sanders supporters to even Barack Obama himself.

      The scripture says “Love covers over a multitude of sins.” People should forsake their sins. Without any public display of contrition or apologies for wrong doing many people won’t “get over it.”

      H. A. Goodman wants people to “get over” their excessive political hatred of Donald Trump. He points out that attacking Trump for things that Hillary got a pass for is hypocritical.

      It is time to continue to give respect for those in office.

      If your motive in defending Hillary is mainly so that you can refocus attention on Trump … then expect to be continued called out on your hypocrisy. You might mean well… in which case I hope the best for you. Hopefully your H. A. Goodman hating days are at end. I hope the evil in you gets replaced by love and respect. The liberal media is all in favor of freedom of the press and freedom of expression right now. Let H. A. Goodman speak his mind then in the spirit of defending the rights of journalists. You appear smart enough to me to know that someone would have interpreted your statement to H. A. Goodman as a threat on his life.

      Sorry, I must end this. Be nice Kevin.

  3. So H A Goodman, why do you hate Hillary so much? Did she do something terrible to you or your family? Hillary lost. What more do you want? Your article is very misleading and only tells parts of numerous stories all bundled into a garbage article.

    1. She lost the Presidential election, but she is still trying to maintain her Dynasty.

      People who have befriended her or worked with her are still being murdered.

      She, along with the established Democrats, are trying to milk the system as much as they can before their time comes to an end…..

  4. If Clinton was so giving to Russia, why would Putin try to put Trump in charge? And, by the way, it is already proven that Russia played an important role in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election in Trymp’s favor?

    1. Please read the New York Times story again. It clearly states (though not in the headline or first paragraph, which is likely as far as you got) that there is no indication or proof that Russia’s meddling actually affected the election in any way. Your “conclusion” comes from the Propaganda Machine, not the Information Machine.
      Furthermore, every recount done showed that the results were accurate.

      Why was Putin getting involved, and leaving fingerprints? Not to get Trump ELECTED, but to show Hillary that the Clintons shouldn’t again get involved in Russian elections, as they did in Yeltsin vs. Zyuganov in 1996. See the movie “Spinning Boris” to be entertained.

  5. Great rant in that video h a! That woman has been dropping rotten fishy sticks all over this planet for far too long. Can’t we exile her to Qatar now.

  6. Thanks, HA, you’re a GoodMan!
    The only point that still needs to be covered is the other side’s claim that the Uranium deal was OK, since one of the rules was that none of the mined uranium leave the US.

    They are unaware of (or ignoring) the fact that everything in business nowadays is fungible – you exchange uranium in the US for uranium in Africa, even often saving shipping costs in the deal. Then, the uranium from Africa goes to Russia, in lieu of the mined uranium locked into the US.
    Not to mention how often things are moved illegally in & out of the US!

  7. Well done piece. Sometimes you sound like you are part of a witch hunt toward the Clintons. I still would prefer her as President over Trump, even with her faults. Of course, Bernie would have been the best choice. Every administration has its dirty deals. We have come to accept it. Bernie would have been different. The people that I know that hang on to your words are the Bernie or Bust folks. They voted for Jill Stine or Gary Johnson and we got Trump. Her dirt is nothing new, not nearly as bad as Bush-Chaney corruption. I wish you did not broadcast your dislike against her so strongly. I wish people like you and Maximilian Gottlieb would have helped the Bernie or Bust folks hold their noises and voted for Hillary, like Michael Moore encouraged. Trump and Pence are sooooooooooooooo much worse than the Clintons. You need to feel some responsibility for her defeat.

    1. You, being a Bernie supporter, decided to throw your vote to Jill.

      My friends, being Bernie supporters, couldn’t stomach the idea of rewarding the DNC establishment for illegal activities and for colluding to keep Bernie out.

      They went with Trump.

  8. “The blind spot in the American media”??
    The main stream American media is mostly one big psyop.

    MSM is the propaganda arm of the CIA/Deep State. The Democratic Party/DNC is the Deep State political party. And the Deep State’s army is the CIA.

    MSM = propaganda much of the time

  9. R u serious trump has done nothing but piss all our friends off and we are a laughing stock send him back to first grade to learn history and then find him a job as a used car salesman, what a joke!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>