by Guy Benson
April 23, 2015
The New York Times and
Bombard Clintons With Foreign
and Tax Scandals
Both of these stories broke late
last night, lighting
up Twitter, and guaranteeing that Team Hillary is about to
endure a very unpleasant stretch of news coverage.
Each one is very
serious indeed, but let's start with the New York Times building
on Peter Schweitzer's 'Clinton Cash' reporting with some breathtaking
new details about a lucrative deal involving Russia's successful
power play on American uranium capacity.
I'll let the
facts do the talking:
The headline in Pravda
trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin's latest coup, its
nationalistic fervor recalling an era when the newspaper 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,
taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes
stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
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
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.
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Follow along as the New York Times "tracks the
money, and the multiple rounds of broken promises"
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.
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
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
Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show.
The Clinton campaign insists that there's no direct evidence
pointing to corrupt influence peddling, but this entire story reeks
to high heaven.
The fact that it arises from 'Clinton Cash' is
additionally problematic for Hillaryworld, given their efforts to
dismiss the author as a right-wing hack peddling "distractions"
But here we have solid proof that while
the Clintons raked in millions from Russian interests for their
foundation and themselves personally, a suspect transaction to cede
a major stake in US uranium capacity to Vladimir Putin snaked its
way into fruition, securing a key national security-related green
light from Hillary's State Department along the way.
vows on transparency and ensuring Russian accountability were
ignored and discarded by the Clintons - with Hillary conducting
all of her official business on a since -culled and -destroyed private
email server (without any oversight) throughout, against
every rule in the book.
At a bare minimum, this entire
imbroglio is a gleaming monument to the "appearance of impropriety."
It very much looks like the Clintons enriched themselves by renting
out US foreign policy, to wealthy Russians, on a matter of
And Hillary's campaign is responding by
protesting that the Times hasn't established and connected
each dot in the quid pro quo. This story alone could be
enough to end a less powerful candidate's presidential campaign.
one, via Reuters:
Hillary Clinton's family's charities
are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a
Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from
governments, and said they may audit other Clinton
Foundation returns in case of other errors.
The foundation and
its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent
weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who
is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016,
vulnerable to undue influence.
Her campaign team calls these
claims "absurd conspiracy theories."
The charities' errors
generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by
millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in
other instances omitting to break out government donations
entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to
The errors, which have not been previously reported,
appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must
file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain
their tax-exempt status.
A charity must show copies of the forms
to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity
raises and spends money.
For three years in a row
beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS
that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S.
governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of
dollars in foreign government contributions reported in
Those entries were errors, according
to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give
tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on
climate change and economic development through this three-year
Wait, the Clintons' organizations are re-filing at least five
years'-worth of taxes because they failed to report tens of
millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments?
Clintons' team has effectively responded by saying,
bad, but you guys only caught us in this 'mistake' because of how
transparent we are."
Go re-read the New York Times story
above before you take that self-congratulation seriously.
"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."
experts say the Reuters-discovered 'errors' are not
necessarily evidence of intentional wrongdoing, but call the
Some experts in charity law and
taxes said it was not remarkable for a charity to refile
an erroneous return once in a while, but for a large, global
charity to refile three or four years in a row was highly
"I've never seen amendment activity like that,"
said Bruce Hopkins, a Kansas City lawyer who has specialized in
charity law for more than four decades, referring to the CHAI
Clinton stepped down from the foundation's board of
directors this month but her husband, Bill Clinton, and their
daughter, Chelsea Clinton, remain directors.
The foundation said
last week after Hillary Clinton became a candidate that it would
continue to accept funding from foreign governments... Nick
Merrill, Clinton's spokesman, has declined to answer inquiries
about the foundation and CHAI.
For three years running, while Hillary was running US foreign
policy, the Clinton groups' tax filings reported that they'd ceased
taking in cash from foreign governments.
All of it - a major
departure from previous years. But it wasn't even close to true.
The numbers they gave the IRS (which may have been too busy harassing
and abusing the real "enemy" to notice) were off
by a very long shot:
You can't prove anything - and what difference, at this point,
does it make...?
Watch this entire Fox News package about
the deal, tracing its roots back well beyond 2013.
Pay special attention at the 5:20 mark,
when a NYT reporter explains how the Clintons denied that a meeting
with uranium oligarchs took place at their home, then were forced to
admit the truth when confronted with photographic evidence (via