The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections

kickstand

De omnibus dubitandum est
Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

"Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.

Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset.

Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to President Vladimir Putin called “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding.


What could possibly go wrong?"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

"Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.

Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset.

Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to President Vladimir Putin called “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding.


What could possibly go wrong?"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

Pretty sure the Clinton Foundation got their share.
 
Pretty sure the Clinton Foundation got their share.
Looking up something else... stumbled upon this article from 2015... confirms your suspicion.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. 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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

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.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Looking up something else... stumbled upon this article from 2015... confirms your suspicion.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. 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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

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.

Thanks for that.
IMO anyone who needs a link to see that if Hillary is involved in a deal there is money to be followed, that person needs help to breathe.
 
Thanks for that.
IMO anyone who needs a link to see that if Hillary is involved in a deal there is money to be followed, that person needs help to breathe.
What I'm now finding very interesting is that if you use BING and look at articles dated 2015 and older you will find all sorts of news sources willing to point out the pay for play shenanigans of the Clinton Foundation... same news sources not willing to peep much about it this year.

Here's a New Yorker article from last year that lays out some pretty damning details... "How far will the Clinton family’s ties to moneyed interests complicate Hillary’s efforts to fashion a populist Presidential campaign?"

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-money-issues
 

NextJen

Raisin cane
I don't know about anyone else, but back when George W Bush was President, I remember Democrat friends and acquaintances of mine that cried and moaned all the time about Halliburton and the ties and corruption there. I don't hear a peep from them now about Clinton corruption.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
That's because Halliburton was a greedy corrupt corporation. The Clinton Foundation is a greedy corrupt charity. Two totally different things.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
What I'm now finding very interesting is that if you use BING and look at articles dated 2015 and older you will find all sorts of news sources willing to point out the pay for play shenanigans of the Clinton Foundation... same news sources not willing to peep much about it this year.

Here's a New Yorker article from last year that lays out some pretty damning details... "How far will the Clinton family’s ties to moneyed interests complicate Hillary’s efforts to fashion a populist Presidential campaign?"

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-money-issues

I have also found that Google does not easily go directly to articles that criticize Hillary while Bing does.
 
Looking up something else... stumbled upon this article from 2015... confirms your suspicion.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. 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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

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.
Hey... did someone remember to dust off the Russian reset button and pack it for this weeks meeting... :confused:
 
The non-biased fact checking site Snopes says otherwise. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Did you actually read what you linked to? Look past the top blurb and keep reading. the 2017 'update'. It clearly said it happened, both the uranium deal to Russia and the money funneled to the Clinton charity. All it says in order to keep its "false" rating is that there is no legal proof of quid pro quo on Hillary's part to accept the payment that happened for the deal that happened. Until all redacted info and withheld documents on this subject are provided for review, the 'false' should in the least become 'undetermined'. I sincerely hope the truth comes to light, as it clearly should.
 

edinsomd

New Member
What I'm now finding very interesting is that if you use BING and look at articles dated 2015 and older you will find all sorts of news sources willing to point out the pay for play shenanigans of the Clinton Foundation... same news sources not willing to peep much about it this year.

Here's a New Yorker article from last year that lays out some pretty damning details... "How far will the Clinton family’s ties to moneyed interests complicate Hillary’s efforts to fashion a populist Presidential campaign?"

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-money-issues

That wore they use, I don't think it means what they think it means.

"In politics, populism refers to a range of approaches which emphasise the role of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". "
 
Top