Thursday, April 23, 2015

NY Times Connects Clinton Foundation to Russian Efforts to Gain Control of Uranimum Mining in Canada, U.S.

In an expose, the New York Times this morning connects the dots between the Russians push for control of a Canadian uranium company and contributions to the Clinton foundation:
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, 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. 
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 Uranium One. 
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. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton
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. 
The lengthy article also contains a table showing some of the donors to the Clinton Foundation and their ties to the Uranium deal:  
Frank Giustra 
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer   
$2.35 million 
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million  
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company. 
Frank Holmes  
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011. 
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000    
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.  
GMP Securities Ltd. 
Donating portion of profits 
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
To see the rest of the lengthy article, click on, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

See also companion article to the NYT piece

For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity

Reuters today has a related story on the Clinton Foundation:

Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

1 comment:

Flogger said...

One thing that stands out is the Clinton's have always been for the Clinton's. It is not a bad trait to have a strong love for your family. The Clinton's have insatiable need for money and a high lifestyle. The nation certainly the 99% part is of secondary interest to the Clinton's.

ROBERT FANTINA says it more poetically than I can - "Thinking of Mrs. Clinton, one is reminded of Paris Hilton, a basically useless creature who is famous simply for being famous. Is Mrs. Clinton so different? Perhaps she is; at least Ms. Hilton isn’t dangerous."