Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

[boutons_deux]

Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer , a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Ins ution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.”

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Cash And The Clinton Rule

On March 12, I posted on Media Matters to discuss what I called the Clinton Rule. The Clinton Rule is as follows: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Well this week we got the ultimate proof of the Clinton Rule when The New York Times got its hands on a copy of Clinton Cash, a forthcoming book which purportedly claims that the State Department received favors from foreign en ies that donated to The Clinton Foundation. Now, I wasn't the least bit surprised that the conservative media echo chamber immediately reverberated with cries of the "very damning" "bombs ," of a book that "could threaten [Hillary's] campaign." And I say purportedly because almost no one has read the book yet.

Here's the thing that did surprise me:

Never have we seen a more instant classic for followers of the Clinton Rule than with this latest tome. The book isn't even slated to be released for several weeks and yet The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News are in cahoots with the author -- reporting on what might be inside. I'll run you through the playbook.

Let's start with the facts. The star of this latest instance of the Clinton Rule is the author, Peter Schweizer.

He's a discredited fringe conservative activist and former political aide to the likes of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.

That's a trifecta that pays a high dollar for pushing right wing conspiracies. Schweizer has worked for such "reputable" publications as Breitbart.com --

the same Breitbart.com that once called gun safety advocate Gabby Giffords a "human shield" for the gun safety movement.

His right wing bona fides don't end there.

Schweizer is even listed as a contributor to one of former Fox News host Glenn Beck's books.

Speaking of Schweizer's work -- back in 1998 he took on the "gay subculture" that was "blossoming" at Walt Disney World. In Disney: The Mouse Betrayed -- which is not listed on Schweizer's website with his other works -- he attacked the "gay activism" at the theme park, with special attention for the annual Gay Day at the Magic Kingdom. "There is a lot of openly displayed affection during the event -- holding hands, kissing, and the like," Schweizer wrote. God forbid.

Here's the deal, Peter Schweizer's new book out May 5 is likely to have serious problems -- one embarrassing error has reportedly already been found. As Media Matters noted this week, Schweizer has been called out at least ten times by journalists and independent fact checkers for getting his facts wrong in his previous articles and books. His past work has been called "incorrect," "bogus," and "a fatal shortcoming in journalism 101." In short, he's a SERIAL MISINFORMER.

Yet, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News have all made exclusive agreements with Schweizer for early access to pursue "the story lines found in the book." I'm not shocked that Fox News took the shady deal here since Harper Collins, which is publishing Schweizer's book, is also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and is the sister company of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox. But I'm hard pressed to find any reason why The New York Times and The Washington Post would do the same except for the Clinton Rule.

The rule where every piece of nonsense the press can grab onto about the Clintons gets headline after headline.

But here's the thing, friends. The last time I remember a major media outlet hyping a right wing book this much was when CBS' 60 Minutes got duped by a guy whose tall tale included him scaling a 12 foot wall on the side of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi and dispatching a terrorist with his rifle butt. We all know how that ended: a book pulled from publication, a 60 Minutes report retracted, and a "journalistic review" which ended with a CBS reporter and producer taking a leave of absence.

All I'm saying here folks is this: The bottom line is that mainstream media must be up for the challenge. To all the reporters wanting to push the limits and take an advance look into the claims of a guy whose history of reporting is marked by errors and retractions, I say it's time to break the Clinton Rule. But in this case, I'm afraid the smarter bet is that we are going to see the same playbook over and over again.

Again, let me repeat what the Clinton Rule is: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for the Clintons. After the latest antics on the part of The New York Times I am forced to add to the Clinton Rule. At The New York Times when it comes to the Clintons, there are no rules.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04...on-rule/203379



It's Back To The Future all over again, as the slandering, lies, witch-hunting of the Clintons in the 1990s is firing up again.

[tlongII]

I guess we know why Hillary deleted all of her emails now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Clinton Cash And The Clinton Rule

On March 12, I posted on Media Matters to discuss what I called the Clinton Rule. The Clinton Rule is as follows: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Well this week we got the ultimate proof of the Clinton Rule when The New York Times got its hands on a copy of Clinton Cash, a forthcoming book which purportedly claims that the State Department received favors from foreign en ies that donated to The Clinton Foundation. Now, I wasn't the least bit surprised that the conservative media echo chamber immediately reverberated with cries of the "very damning" "bombs ," of a book that "could threaten [Hillary's] campaign." And I say purportedly because almost no one has read the book yet.

Here's the thing that did surprise me:

Never have we seen a more instant classic for followers of the Clinton Rule than with this latest tome. The book isn't even slated to be released for several weeks and yet The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News are in cahoots with the author -- reporting on what might be inside. I'll run you through the playbook.

Let's start with the facts. The star of this latest instance of the Clinton Rule is the author, Peter Schweizer.

He's a discredited fringe conservative activist and former political aide to the likes of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.

That's a trifecta that pays a high dollar for pushing right wing conspiracies. Schweizer has worked for such "reputable" publications as Breitbart.com --

the same Breitbart.com that once called gun safety advocate Gabby Giffords a "human shield" for the gun safety movement.

His right wing bona fides don't end there.

Schweizer is even listed as a contributor to one of former Fox News host Glenn Beck's books.

Speaking of Schweizer's work -- back in 1998 he took on the "gay subculture" that was "blossoming" at Walt Disney World. In Disney: The Mouse Betrayed -- which is not listed on Schweizer's website with his other works -- he attacked the "gay activism" at the theme park, with special attention for the annual Gay Day at the Magic Kingdom. "There is a lot of openly displayed affection during the event -- holding hands, kissing, and the like," Schweizer wrote. God forbid.

Here's the deal, Peter Schweizer's new book out May 5 is likely to have serious problems -- one embarrassing error has reportedly already been found. As Media Matters noted this week, Schweizer has been called out at least ten times by journalists and independent fact checkers for getting his facts wrong in his previous articles and books. His past work has been called "incorrect," "bogus," and "a fatal shortcoming in journalism 101." In short, he's a SERIAL MISINFORMER.

Yet, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News have all made exclusive agreements with Schweizer for early access to pursue "the story lines found in the book." I'm not shocked that Fox News took the shady deal here since Harper Collins, which is publishing Schweizer's book, is also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and is the sister company of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox. But I'm hard pressed to find any reason why The New York Times and The Washington Post would do the same except for the Clinton Rule.

The rule where every piece of nonsense the press can grab onto about the Clintons gets headline after headline.

But here's the thing, friends. The last time I remember a major media outlet hyping a right wing book this much was when CBS' 60 Minutes got duped by a guy whose tall tale included him scaling a 12 foot wall on the side of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi and dispatching a terrorist with his rifle butt. We all know how that ended: a book pulled from publication, a 60 Minutes report retracted, and a "journalistic review" which ended with a CBS reporter and producer taking a leave of absence.

All I'm saying here folks is this: The bottom line is that mainstream media must be up for the challenge. To all the reporters wanting to push the limits and take an advance look into the claims of a guy whose history of reporting is marked by errors and retractions, I say it's time to break the Clinton Rule. But in this case, I'm afraid the smarter bet is that we are going to see the same playbook over and over again.

Again, let me repeat what the Clinton Rule is: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for the Clintons. After the latest antics on the part of The New York Times I am forced to add to the Clinton Rule. At The New York Times when it comes to the Clintons, there are no rules.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04...on-rule/203379



It's Back To The Future all over again, as the slandering, lies, witch-hunting of the Clintons in the 1990s is firing up again.

His next book is on Jeb Bush.

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Media Float Conspiracy That Obama Made Statement On Drone Strike To Distract From Clinton Cash



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04...t-obama/203394

[spursncowboys]

Some will be calling this treason!

I agree that if this is true, it is treasonous.
I think this investigation is a good start point and Hillary needs to start answering questions or be held in contempt

[ElNono]

Haven't been able to catch up to this story yet. Before I start, can OP confirm we can trust the liberal M$M media on this one?

[Clipper Nation]

Lib s spinning and deflecting as fast as they can

[Infinite_limit]

Russians fault

[spursncowboys]

Haven't been able to catch up to this story yet. Before I start, can OP confirm we can trust the liberal M$M media on this one?

Howard Dean says no.
I think the bias of the msm has been proven to most common sense people. It's an accepted world we love in. So it says allot that wp and nyt published this.

[ElNono]

Howard Dean says no.
I think the bias of the msm has been proven to most common sense people. It's an accepted world we love in. So it says allot that wp and nyt published this.

I saw the headline last night. I was too sleepy to read it, but the thought of "this is getting released now so it doesn't become a campaign bombs later" did cross my mind, tbh.

[pgardn]

Howard Dean says no.
I think the bias of the msm has been proven to most common sense people. It's an accepted world we love in. So it says allot that wp and nyt published this.

So what press do you see as honest and without bias, I would like a list.

I think the NY Times has a liberal slant.
But I don't dismiss the paper out of hand because of it.

[pgardn]

Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer , a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Ins ution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.”

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

So let's drop the bigger implications for now.

One Question: Why was the donation NOT disclosed as per agreement with the Obama admin?

[spursncowboys]

So what press do you see as honest and without bias, I would like a list.

I think the NY Times has a liberal slant.
But I don't dismiss the paper out of hand because of it.

USAToday
NYT and most major papers are not just a slant, but a culture. But I don't dismiss it either, though. Also I feel like this point has been said over and over for fifteen years of my adult life, so I really don't want to get into the MSM is/isn't biased.

[spursncowboys]

I saw the headline last night. I was too sleepy to read it, but the thought of "this is getting released now so it doesn't become a campaign bombs later" did cross my mind, tbh.

Yeah. I thought that too. That and her benghazi hearing coming up in may. It's like they're trying to get all the skeletons out now and overload repubs and then the repubs look bad for going on and on.

[pgardn]

USAToday
NYT and most major papers are not just a slant, but a culture. But I don't dismiss it either, though. Also I feel like this point has been said over and over for fifteen years of my adult life, so I really don't want to get into the MSM is/isn't biased.

So your list?

What do you read, we can't be there.

[pgardn]

So let's drop the bigger implications for now.

One Question: Why was the donation NOT disclosed as per agreement with the Obama admin?

This is a problem for Hillary.
Just this one part is not explained.


The other stuff is gonna take some more digging. And could be huge.

[TeyshaBlue]

mediamatters

[ElNono]

Yeah. I thought that too. That and her benghazi hearing coming up in may. It's like they're trying to get all the skeletons out now and overload repubs and then the repubs look bad for going on and on.

The Republican's biggest problem is that they don't know when to let go. They have somehow turned Benghazi into a meme, amazingly. Didn't even know they were still going with that. I'll be actually surprised if it doesn't backfire by now.

I don't hate Hillary the person, but I'm completely disgusted with Hillary the candidate/politician. I would never vote for her. That's why this story doesn't surprise me at all.

Then again, I can't deny she's a popular candidate. In that sense, that's why I think red team can't afford to put a ty/fringe candidate out there. I'm just hoping Barry does a couple more ups until the election to help out, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

mediamatters

TB Peter Schweizer.

[Winehole23]

Lib s spinning and deflecting as fast as they can

maybe somebody else will find real dirt. there's no smoking gun yet.

[Winehole23]

on the other hand, Whitewater seems to have lost its sailing trim, maybe the furore around Clinton Foundation shenanigans will be the gale that drives popular discourse. Benghazi needs to be put to bed.

[boutons_deux]

NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times' Story Based On Clinton Cash "Doesn't Hold Up That Well," Here's Why

NBC News has conceded that the flimsy anti-Clinton allegations contained in a New York Times report fail to deliver on the hype surrounding them. The Times report was based in part on a chapter from discredited conservative author Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash, and a series of facts surrounding the story's allegations supports NBC's negative conclusion.

The Times story suggested that donations to the Clinton Foundation may have influenced Hillary Clinton's State Department, when they signed off on the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with uranium mining claims in the U.S., to Rosatom, a Russian atomic energy agency. Alleging that individuals who had previously donated to the Clinton Foundation may have benefited from the deal, theTimes' reporting has been used as the springboard for commentary hyping the supposed connection, despite the lack of evidence.

But the April 24 First Read column on NBCNews.com admits, "upon reflection, that Times article doesn't hold up that well 24 hours after its publication."
Indeed, a series of facts supports NBC's conclusion and unravels the innuendo in the Times piece:

• Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
• Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.
• The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.
• The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.
• Rosatom had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.
• Utah's local nuclear regulator also had to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.
• Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said, "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

Other media outlets have found that this and additional allegations in Schweizer's book about donations to the Clinton Foundation are unpersuasive.

Time magazine noted that Schweizer's allegation about Uranium One "is based on little evidence," and "offers no indication of Hillary Clinton's personal involvement in, or even knowledge of the deliberations,"

while CNN's Chris Cuomo noted that the "the examples that have come out so far in [The New York Times] were not that impressive."

ABC News reported that Clinton Cash "offers no proof that Hillary Clinton took any direct action to benefit the groups and interests that were paying her husband," while Fox News' Ed Henry noted "there's a lot that's murky" in Schweitzer's claims.

Even Times writer Patrick Healy admitted that the allegations are "not smoking guns."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04...y-based/203412

You rightwingnuts suck down every VRWC fabricated outrage, fabricated scandal, LIES, and pure bull !

all together now:

BENGHAZI!

[spursncowboys]

maybe somebody else will find real dirt. there's no smoking gun yet.

Enough to ask more questions and demand answers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lib s spinning and deflecting as fast as they can

In your own words explain the link to us between the Russians and Hillary.