Hillary Clinton’s legal team said her testimony was unnecessary and superfluous in light of her questioning before the House Benghazi Committee last October. | Getty
[h=1]Clinton legal team moves to block deposition in email lawsuit[/h]By JOSH GERSTEIN
07/12/16 12:31 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton are going to federal court for the first time to block efforts to force her to testify in a civil lawsuit related to her private email set-up.
Clinton's attorneys submitted a legal filing Tuesday morning in a bid to shut down a conservative group's request for an order forcing her to submit to a deposition in the midst of her presidential campaign.
Story Continued Below
Clinton’s legal team said her testimony was unnecessary and superfluous in light of her questioning before the House Benghazi Committee last October and several State Department inquiries into the issue.
“Despite this public testimony and the various investigative reports, Judicial Watch claims that it needs to depose Secretary Clinton, a former Cabinet Secretary, about six purportedly unanswered questions," the filing states. "The record, however, already answers those questions or makes clear that Secretary Clinton has no personal knowledge to provide.”
Judicial Watch has asked to depose Clinton in a pair of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits which have raised questions about whether her private email system was created in part to avoid making messages accessible under FOIA.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has set a hearing for Monday on the request for Clinton’s testimony in one of the suits, a case demanding records about employment arrangements of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
In the filing Tuesday, longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall leveled a series of legal arguments against Judicial Watch, even offering the politically awkward contention that a general effort by Clinton to thwart FOIA would not be enough to give the conservative group legal authority to proceed with its case.
ADVERTISING
[COLOR=#AAAAAA !important][COLOR=#79BBE9 !important]inRead
invented by Teads[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Kendall argued that a 1980 Supreme Court case that discussed the possibility of recovering records sought under FOIA but no longer in agency control "requires a close temporal connection between an official’s removal of records and a specific FOIA request."
"That standard cannot be satisfied here. Judicial Watch’s FOIA request was submitted nearly four months after Secretary Clinton left the State Department, and there is no evidence that Secretary Clinton or anyone else at the Department knew that Judicial Watch would submit the request, let alone intended to circumvent it," Kendall wrote, along with attorneys Katherine Turner and Amy Zaharia.
Clinton's legal team has never previously intervened directly in the lawsuits, which name the State Department as defendant.
However, last year, Clinton did submit a declaration under penalty of perjury saying she'd instructed her attorneys to turn over all federal records in her possession to the State Department. Clinton said it was her belief that had been done.
The State Department also filed a legal brief Tuesday opposing the call for Clinton to be deposed in the suit before Sullivan.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the resistance to a Clinton deposition troubling, in part because Clinton's brief argues that her server was entirely her property after she stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013.
"It is no surprise that neither Hillary Clinton nor the Obama State Department agrees with our request to depose Mrs. Clinton," Fitton said. "It is both significant and disturbing that Hillary Clinton now asserts a private 'claim of right” over her non-state.gov email account, including any of the 55,000 pages of federal records she returned to the State Department."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-block-deposition-email-225418#ixzz4EFgmwdLM
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Hillary Clinton’s legal team said her testimony was unnecessary and superfluous in light of her questioning before the House Benghazi Committee last October. | Getty
[h=1]Clinton legal team moves to block deposition in email lawsuit[/h]By JOSH GERSTEIN
07/12/16 12:31 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Lawyers for Hillary Clinton are going to federal court for the first time to block efforts to force her to testify in a civil lawsuit related to her private email set-up.
Clinton's attorneys submitted a legal filing Tuesday morning in a bid to shut down a conservative group's request for an order forcing her to submit to a deposition in the midst of her presidential campaign.
Story Continued Below
Clinton’s legal team said her testimony was unnecessary and superfluous in light of her questioning before the House Benghazi Committee last October and several State Department inquiries into the issue.
“Despite this public testimony and the various investigative reports, Judicial Watch claims that it needs to depose Secretary Clinton, a former Cabinet Secretary, about six purportedly unanswered questions," the filing states. "The record, however, already answers those questions or makes clear that Secretary Clinton has no personal knowledge to provide.”
Judicial Watch has asked to depose Clinton in a pair of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits which have raised questions about whether her private email system was created in part to avoid making messages accessible under FOIA.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has set a hearing for Monday on the request for Clinton’s testimony in one of the suits, a case demanding records about employment arrangements of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
In the filing Tuesday, longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall leveled a series of legal arguments against Judicial Watch, even offering the politically awkward contention that a general effort by Clinton to thwart FOIA would not be enough to give the conservative group legal authority to proceed with its case.
ADVERTISING
[COLOR=#AAAAAA !important][COLOR=#79BBE9 !important]inRead
invented by Teads[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
Kendall argued that a 1980 Supreme Court case that discussed the possibility of recovering records sought under FOIA but no longer in agency control "requires a close temporal connection between an official’s removal of records and a specific FOIA request."
"That standard cannot be satisfied here. Judicial Watch’s FOIA request was submitted nearly four months after Secretary Clinton left the State Department, and there is no evidence that Secretary Clinton or anyone else at the Department knew that Judicial Watch would submit the request, let alone intended to circumvent it," Kendall wrote, along with attorneys Katherine Turner and Amy Zaharia.
Clinton's legal team has never previously intervened directly in the lawsuits, which name the State Department as defendant.
However, last year, Clinton did submit a declaration under penalty of perjury saying she'd instructed her attorneys to turn over all federal records in her possession to the State Department. Clinton said it was her belief that had been done.
The State Department also filed a legal brief Tuesday opposing the call for Clinton to be deposed in the suit before Sullivan.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the resistance to a Clinton deposition troubling, in part because Clinton's brief argues that her server was entirely her property after she stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013.
"It is no surprise that neither Hillary Clinton nor the Obama State Department agrees with our request to depose Mrs. Clinton," Fitton said. "It is both significant and disturbing that Hillary Clinton now asserts a private 'claim of right” over her non-state.gov email account, including any of the 55,000 pages of federal records she returned to the State Department."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-block-deposition-email-225418#ixzz4EIVT3UeQ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
[h=1]Epic Humiliation: Politifact Makes 13 Errors in a Single Clinton Cash Fact-Check[/h]
by JEROME HUDSON12 Jul 2016960
[h=2]Politifact, in its analysis of the Uranium One/Rosatom/State Department story firstreported by the New York Times and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash, ignores numerous key facts, conflates opinion for fact, deemphasizes other key facts, makes 13 errors, declares an incomplete donor record as complete, and takes the word of a major Clinton Foundation donor who has a demonstrable record of deceiving media outlets about basic facts in this deal. All of these errors curiously redound to the benefit of Hillary Clinton.[/h]The fact-check article was written by Politifact staff writer Linda Qiu, who took to Twitter and joked about her newly acquired skill for searching SEDAR, Canada’s version of EDGAR for publicly traded companies.
Follow
Linda Qiu @YLindaQiu
in which I learn to use Canadian EDGAR, the more elegant/French-sounding SEDAR https://twitter.com/PolitiFact/status/748587613880193024 …
1:50 PM - 30 Jun 2016
Qiu, in her fact-check, made several factual errors — those inaccuracies and glaring omissions have been laid out below.
Politifact Claim: Politifact uses the opinion of Jeffrey Lewis to suggest that National Security implications of this deal were not serious. “Russia’s purchase of the company ‘had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire,’ said Lewis. ‘That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC) approved it.’”
FACT: Mr. Lewis is entitled to his opinion, but the fact is the ranking members of the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Financial Services, and Homeland Security wrote a 1,276-word letter expressing their “great concerns” about the deal and asked the Obama Administration to block it. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming, the state in which Uranium One’s flagship US property exists, also wrote the Obama Administration expressing his serious concerns about the deal.
Ms. Qiu also completely ignores the fact that State Department cables highlighted inWikiLeaks and reported in Clinton Cash raised questions and concerns about Russian attempts to corner the world uranium markets, specifically the mines in Kazakhstan involving Uranium One.
How and why did Ms. Qiu ignore these facts? Ms. Qiu substitutes Mr. Lewis’ opinion for these basic facts which are never even mentioned in the piece.
Politifact Claim: “For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, ‘so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases.’ The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.”
FACT: Ms. Qiu ignores the facts presented by the New York Times (an article she cites) which completely contradicts and undermines this statement. Specifically, that uranium has been exported by Uranium One since the acquisition:
“Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license.”
Politifact Claim: Only one Clinton Foundation donor [Ian Telfer] was a major shareholder in Uranium One at the time of the State Department review. ”Using SEDAR, Canada’s filing system for public companies, we could only verify one UrAsia shareholder (Ian Telfer) who also owned stocks in Uranium One in 2010 and who chaired its Board of Directors. A New York Timesinvestigation on the topic linked two others to Uranium One… So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”
FACT: Clinton Foundation donor Frank Holmes was a shareholder in Uranium One through his fund US Global Investors as late as 2011. See the SEC’s Uranium One disclosure. See also the New York Times‘ reporting on this matter.
Politifact Claim: “On the contrary, the donations detailed by author Schweizer occurred at least two years before the deal.”
FACT: Politifact failed to report that ARMZ’s June 2009 purchase of %17 of Uranium One also required a CFIUS review – one that was completed in November 2009. This can be seen on page 16 of Uranium One’s third quarter Management Discussion & Analysis.
Politifact Claim: “Russia didn’t get involved until two years later, in June 2009, when its nuclear agency started buying shares in Uranium One. The Kremlin upped its stake in the company from 17 percent to a controlling 51 percent the following year, and assumed total ownership of the company in 2013 (and renamed it to Uranium One Holding).”
FACT: ARMZ, the Rosatom subsidiary that made the three stage Uranium purchase, began discussions in July 2008.
See page 10 of this ARMZ presentation on the history of the ARMZ/Uranium One merger:
These two facts show the following. For nearly two years before the mid-2010 timeframe, both Uranium One’s shareholders and executives, as well as officials at Rosatom/ARMZ, were contemplating and then executing transactions covered by CFIUS. This brings many of the donations and the negotiations and transactions under question within a year of each other.
Politifact Claim: “So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”
FACT: As we have seen already the history of negotiations for the Russian purchase of Uranium One extends back to at least July 2008. This purchase was always going to include a CFIUS review because of Uranium One’s U.S. Properties. But Ms Qiu omits another salient and widely reported point to make this claim. Throughout her piece, Ms. Qiu consistently and repeatedly acts as if the Clinton Foundation donation records are complete. This assumption is not only sloppy journalism, but runs completely contrary to the facts, as has been reported by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Indeed, as has been widely reported, we still don’t know from Canadian donors the full amounts and actual names of all the contributors. Specifically, donations from Sergey Kurzin, who is highlighted in the piece, still have not been completely reported by the Clinton Foundation. In fact, Mr. Giustra admitted to Bloomberg that Mr. Kurzin and one of Mr. Kurzin’s companies, Dragon Capital, were undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation. Again, these are easily verifiable facts that have been widely reported, are central to Ms. Qiu’s narrative, and yet she completely ignores them.
Politifact Claim:
FACT: Politifact is confusing commitments to donate with the actual dates of donations.
Politifact Claim: “Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.”
FACT: The absurdity of this statement boggles the mind. Of course she could not know she would be Secretary of State. She was planning to be president, and her donors had the same expectation. Why these donors would be happier knowing she was Secretary of State than believing she would be president of the United States is a truly bizarre assumption. Ms. Qiu should know that while the State Department must review and sign off on any CFIUS transaction, the president has final authority.
Politifact Claim: Politifact implies that all interested parties in the deal other than Ian Telfer gave money prior to the deal in 2010: “So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal.”
FACT: Renaissance Capital, a company staffed by connected Russian officials, pays Bill for a speech in June 2010.
Renaissance Capital is the very definition of “involved with.” As has been repeatedly reported, Renaissance Capital was pushing Uranium One stock at the time and is closely tied to the Russian government.
Ms. Qiu never even mentions this payment despite the fact that it was reported not only by Clinton Cash but confirmed by the New York Times and the New Yorker.
Clearly, this is more than “one man involved with Uranium One.”
Politifact Claim: One caveat: The New York Times found that Ian Telfer donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.
FACT: Ian Telfer’s donation was reported in Clinton Cash. Ms. Qiu never mentions the fact that these donations were never reported by the Clinton Foundation. An important fact, given that this story is about the possibility of quid pro quo or conflicts of interest.
Also, this shows a multi-million dollar donor to the Foundation was the head of the company that was bought by Russia. And Hillary’s State Department approved the dealwithout disclosing the conflict, a fact confirmed by the New York Times.
Politifact Claim: “Furthermore, the bulk of the $145 million comes from Frank Giustra, the founder of UrAsia Energy and a major Clinton Foundation donor. Guistra says he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, ‘at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State’ and three years before the Russian deal.”
FACT: Ms. Qiu takes Mr. Giustra at his word that he was no longer a shareholder after late-2007. Is he telling the truth? Who knows. But it would seem important for Ms. Qiu to point out that Mr. Giustra has not been honest when asked about the details of this story before. For example, Mr. Giustra denied to New York Times reporters that he had arranged a 2007 meeting between the senior Kazakh nuclear official and Bill Clinton. Only after being presented with a photograph of the meeting did Mr. Giustra admit his role in the meeting.
Politifact Claim: “The State Department’s principal representative on the committee, Jose Hernandez, told Time that Clinton ‘never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.'”
FACT: Ms. Qiu and her editors are confusing Jose Hernandez with Jose Fernandez. TimeMagazine also made this error, but Ms. Qiu apparently went no further than the Time Magazine reference. Had she simply gone to the State Department’s website, this error would have been avoided. Politifact did issue a correction later that Jose Fernandez should have been the name used.
Politifact is uncritically accepting this statement without any due diligence in checking the veracity of this statement. The highly-parsed construct “intervened with me” leaves a wide latitude of possible means by which Mrs. Clinton, her aides, or Clinton Foundation officials could have been involved in this matter.
Politifact Claim: “The company in question, Uranium One, does have mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. It churns out a smaller portion of actual uranium produced in the United States (11 percent in 2014),according to Oilprice.com.
But that’s less cause for alarm than Trump is suggesting. For one, the United States doesn’t actually produce all that much uranium (about 2 percent in 2015) and is actually a net importer of the chemical, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation.”
FACT: This graph suggests that access to U.S. Uranium deposits didn’t matter to the Russians – and that the Kazakh mines were most important. No doubt the Kazakh mines were very important, but to dismiss Uranium One’s American assets ignores the Russian strategy.
From the introduction to the interview with Vadim Zhivov:
2326
16
by JEROME HUDSON12 Jul 2016960
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Politifact, in its analysis of the Uranium One/Rosatom/State Department story firstreported by the New York Times and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash, ignores numerous key facts, conflates opinion for fact, deemphasizes other key facts, makes 13 errors, declares an incomplete donor record as complete, and takes the word of a major Clinton Foundation donor who has a demonstrable record of deceiving media outlets about basic facts in this deal. All of these errors curiously redound to the benefit of Hillary Clinton.[/h]The fact-check article was written by Politifact staff writer Linda Qiu, who took to Twitter and joked about her newly acquired skill for searching SEDAR, Canada’s version of EDGAR for publicly traded companies.
Follow
Linda Qiu @YLindaQiuin which I learn to use Canadian EDGAR, the more elegant/French-sounding SEDAR https://twitter.com/PolitiFact/status/748587613880193024 …
1:50 PM - 30 Jun 2016
Qiu, in her fact-check, made several factual errors — those inaccuracies and glaring omissions have been laid out below.
Politifact Claim: Politifact uses the opinion of Jeffrey Lewis to suggest that National Security implications of this deal were not serious. “Russia’s purchase of the company ‘had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire,’ said Lewis. ‘That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC) approved it.’”
FACT: Mr. Lewis is entitled to his opinion, but the fact is the ranking members of the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Financial Services, and Homeland Security wrote a 1,276-word letter expressing their “great concerns” about the deal and asked the Obama Administration to block it. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming, the state in which Uranium One’s flagship US property exists, also wrote the Obama Administration expressing his serious concerns about the deal.
Ms. Qiu also completely ignores the fact that State Department cables highlighted inWikiLeaks and reported in Clinton Cash raised questions and concerns about Russian attempts to corner the world uranium markets, specifically the mines in Kazakhstan involving Uranium One.
How and why did Ms. Qiu ignore these facts? Ms. Qiu substitutes Mr. Lewis’ opinion for these basic facts which are never even mentioned in the piece.
Politifact Claim: “For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, ‘so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases.’ The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.”
FACT: Ms. Qiu ignores the facts presented by the New York Times (an article she cites) which completely contradicts and undermines this statement. Specifically, that uranium has been exported by Uranium One since the acquisition:
“Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license.”
Politifact Claim: Only one Clinton Foundation donor [Ian Telfer] was a major shareholder in Uranium One at the time of the State Department review. ”Using SEDAR, Canada’s filing system for public companies, we could only verify one UrAsia shareholder (Ian Telfer) who also owned stocks in Uranium One in 2010 and who chaired its Board of Directors. A New York Timesinvestigation on the topic linked two others to Uranium One… So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”
FACT: Clinton Foundation donor Frank Holmes was a shareholder in Uranium One through his fund US Global Investors as late as 2011. See the SEC’s Uranium One disclosure. See also the New York Times‘ reporting on this matter.
Politifact Claim: “On the contrary, the donations detailed by author Schweizer occurred at least two years before the deal.”
FACT: Politifact failed to report that ARMZ’s June 2009 purchase of %17 of Uranium One also required a CFIUS review – one that was completed in November 2009. This can be seen on page 16 of Uranium One’s third quarter Management Discussion & Analysis.
Politifact Claim: “Russia didn’t get involved until two years later, in June 2009, when its nuclear agency started buying shares in Uranium One. The Kremlin upped its stake in the company from 17 percent to a controlling 51 percent the following year, and assumed total ownership of the company in 2013 (and renamed it to Uranium One Holding).”
FACT: ARMZ, the Rosatom subsidiary that made the three stage Uranium purchase, began discussions in July 2008.
See page 10 of this ARMZ presentation on the history of the ARMZ/Uranium One merger:
These two facts show the following. For nearly two years before the mid-2010 timeframe, both Uranium One’s shareholders and executives, as well as officials at Rosatom/ARMZ, were contemplating and then executing transactions covered by CFIUS. This brings many of the donations and the negotiations and transactions under question within a year of each other.
Politifact Claim: “So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”
FACT: As we have seen already the history of negotiations for the Russian purchase of Uranium One extends back to at least July 2008. This purchase was always going to include a CFIUS review because of Uranium One’s U.S. Properties. But Ms Qiu omits another salient and widely reported point to make this claim. Throughout her piece, Ms. Qiu consistently and repeatedly acts as if the Clinton Foundation donation records are complete. This assumption is not only sloppy journalism, but runs completely contrary to the facts, as has been reported by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Indeed, as has been widely reported, we still don’t know from Canadian donors the full amounts and actual names of all the contributors. Specifically, donations from Sergey Kurzin, who is highlighted in the piece, still have not been completely reported by the Clinton Foundation. In fact, Mr. Giustra admitted to Bloomberg that Mr. Kurzin and one of Mr. Kurzin’s companies, Dragon Capital, were undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation. Again, these are easily verifiable facts that have been widely reported, are central to Ms. Qiu’s narrative, and yet she completely ignores them.
Politifact Claim:
| “Investor” | Connection | Donation | Year |
| Frank Giustra* | UrAsia Energy founder | $131.3 million | Late 2005 andJune 2007 |
| Frank Holmes* | Executive at U.S. Global Investors, which held Uranium One shares | $250,000 to $500,000 | $100,000 in March 2008 |
| Neil Woodyer* | Advisor to Uranium One | $500,000 | March 2008 |
| Robert Disbrow | Broker at Haywood Securities, which provided $58 million in capital UrAsia-Uranium One merger, according to Clinton Cash | $1 million to $5 million | $1 million in 2007 |
| Paul Reynolds* | Financial advisor on UrAsia-Uranium One merger | $1 million to $5 million | $1 million in March 2008 |
| Robert Cross | UrAsia shareholder and director | $500,000 | March 2008 |
| Egizio Bianchini | Cohead BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, underwriter for UrAsia-Uranium One Merger | $600,000 | March 2008 |
| Sergey Kurzin | UrAsia shareholder | $1 million | March 2008 |
| Ian Telfer** | Uranium One chairman | $3 million | March 2008 |
| Total | $139.15 million to $146.9 million |
Politifact Claim: “Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.”
FACT: The absurdity of this statement boggles the mind. Of course she could not know she would be Secretary of State. She was planning to be president, and her donors had the same expectation. Why these donors would be happier knowing she was Secretary of State than believing she would be president of the United States is a truly bizarre assumption. Ms. Qiu should know that while the State Department must review and sign off on any CFIUS transaction, the president has final authority.
Politifact Claim: Politifact implies that all interested parties in the deal other than Ian Telfer gave money prior to the deal in 2010: “So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal.”
FACT: Renaissance Capital, a company staffed by connected Russian officials, pays Bill for a speech in June 2010.
Renaissance Capital is the very definition of “involved with.” As has been repeatedly reported, Renaissance Capital was pushing Uranium One stock at the time and is closely tied to the Russian government.
Ms. Qiu never even mentions this payment despite the fact that it was reported not only by Clinton Cash but confirmed by the New York Times and the New Yorker.
Clearly, this is more than “one man involved with Uranium One.”
Politifact Claim: One caveat: The New York Times found that Ian Telfer donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.
FACT: Ian Telfer’s donation was reported in Clinton Cash. Ms. Qiu never mentions the fact that these donations were never reported by the Clinton Foundation. An important fact, given that this story is about the possibility of quid pro quo or conflicts of interest.
Also, this shows a multi-million dollar donor to the Foundation was the head of the company that was bought by Russia. And Hillary’s State Department approved the dealwithout disclosing the conflict, a fact confirmed by the New York Times.
Politifact Claim: “Furthermore, the bulk of the $145 million comes from Frank Giustra, the founder of UrAsia Energy and a major Clinton Foundation donor. Guistra says he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, ‘at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State’ and three years before the Russian deal.”
FACT: Ms. Qiu takes Mr. Giustra at his word that he was no longer a shareholder after late-2007. Is he telling the truth? Who knows. But it would seem important for Ms. Qiu to point out that Mr. Giustra has not been honest when asked about the details of this story before. For example, Mr. Giustra denied to New York Times reporters that he had arranged a 2007 meeting between the senior Kazakh nuclear official and Bill Clinton. Only after being presented with a photograph of the meeting did Mr. Giustra admit his role in the meeting.
Politifact Claim: “The State Department’s principal representative on the committee, Jose Hernandez, told Time that Clinton ‘never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.'”
FACT: Ms. Qiu and her editors are confusing Jose Hernandez with Jose Fernandez. TimeMagazine also made this error, but Ms. Qiu apparently went no further than the Time Magazine reference. Had she simply gone to the State Department’s website, this error would have been avoided. Politifact did issue a correction later that Jose Fernandez should have been the name used.
Politifact is uncritically accepting this statement without any due diligence in checking the veracity of this statement. The highly-parsed construct “intervened with me” leaves a wide latitude of possible means by which Mrs. Clinton, her aides, or Clinton Foundation officials could have been involved in this matter.
Politifact Claim: “The company in question, Uranium One, does have mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. It churns out a smaller portion of actual uranium produced in the United States (11 percent in 2014),according to Oilprice.com.
But that’s less cause for alarm than Trump is suggesting. For one, the United States doesn’t actually produce all that much uranium (about 2 percent in 2015) and is actually a net importer of the chemical, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation.”
FACT: This graph suggests that access to U.S. Uranium deposits didn’t matter to the Russians – and that the Kazakh mines were most important. No doubt the Kazakh mines were very important, but to dismiss Uranium One’s American assets ignores the Russian strategy.
From the introduction to the interview with Vadim Zhivov:
“Russia’s hunger for uranium is apparently insatiable. In fact, Vadim Zhivov, the director general of ARMZ Uranium Holding Company (ARMZ), AKA Atomredmetzoloto – one of the leaders in the world uranium mining industry – fears that the country might be faced by a deficit of uranium.”
Clearly, the Russians think these purchases are strategic. To the extent U.S. companies aren’t using U.S. Uranium in the world market, and the Russian state owns a major portion of that capacity that gives the Russians leverage in the world market it wouldn’t otherwise have.
Republicans are scum, scuma re republicans...
Republican with a fat arrest record, Darrell Issa, says charge Hillary—or face government shutdown
By Leslie Salzillo
Wednesday Jul 06, 2016 · 7:06 PM PDT
Republican Rep. Darell Issa
Can’t you kids give me just one minute of peace? No sooner did the FBI announce they found no reason to press criminal charges against Hillary Clinton regarding, “those damn emails,” many in the GOP are seeking justice (that’s Republican speak for: “Waaaaaa! We’re unhappy.”) This, on top of Benghazi? WAAAAA! California, Rep. Darrell Issa who has an arrest record of his own is especially upset with the decision and calls for Republicans to seek a government shutdown. Previously, Isssa said he would never vote for a shutdown, but he’s changing his mind — he’s going to go there. Joseph Israel with Think Progress reports:
While we’re on the subject of past charges, in 2011 Media Matters did a story about allegations against Darrell Issa that were largely ignored by the media as well as in court, so we’re gonna go there.
Republican with a fat arrest record, Darrell Issa, says charge Hillary—or face government shutdown
By Leslie Salzillo
Wednesday Jul 06, 2016 · 7:06 PM PDT
Republican Rep. Darell Issa
Can’t you kids give me just one minute of peace? No sooner did the FBI announce they found no reason to press criminal charges against Hillary Clinton regarding, “those damn emails,” many in the GOP are seeking justice (that’s Republican speak for: “Waaaaaa! We’re unhappy.”) This, on top of Benghazi? WAAAAA! California, Rep. Darrell Issa who has an arrest record of his own is especially upset with the decision and calls for Republicans to seek a government shutdown. Previously, Isssa said he would never vote for a shutdown, but he’s changing his mind — he’s going to go there. Joseph Israel with Think Progress reports:
“We should be willing to shut down the government if the president won’t limit his power,” he said, noting that his party had repeatedly been “willing to shut down the government over ending Obamacare and these other things.” Those things, according to Issa, are “small points compared to the actual balance of our republic.”
Yadda, yadda, yada… Issa goes on about how the law is being ignored and how it’s “not about Hillary Clinton,” it’s a about that damn “imperial president.” Here is an audio tape of Issa talking about Clinton, Obama and James Comey on SIRiUS.
While we’re on the subject of past charges, in 2011 Media Matters did a story about allegations against Darrell Issa that were largely ignored by the media as well as in court, so we’re gonna go there.
Rep. Darrell Issa's past includes arrests for weapons charges and auto theft, suspicions of arson, and accusations of intimidation with a gun, but you'd hardly know it from the media's recent coverage of the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. While Issa was substantially mentioned in 15 articles in the nation's largest newspapers since the last election -- including several major profiles -- only one of those articles mentioned any of these allegations. Likewise, interviewers did not ask Issa about his alleged criminal past in any of the cable or network interviews he sat for during that period.
Hmmm, someone might want to STFU.
MYSTERY: CNN loses feed as reporter critiques Hillary Clinton
JULY 14, 2016
BY KYLE OLSON
What happened on Tuesday isn’t going to do anything to help CNN shed the “Clinton News Network” moniker.
As reporter Brianna Keilar was appearing live from Hillary’s speech in Springfield, Illinois — and critiquing her record — the feed was mysteriously lost.
“Largely Hillary Clinton’s comments here today, John, were based around the recent violence that we have seen,” Keilar reported.
“The police-involved shootings of black men in Minnesota, in Louisiana, and the killing of white police officers by a black gunman in Dallas. That was really what she based her comments on around today.
“And remember Hillary Clinton has some vulnerabilities herself.
“Even as she calls for criminal justice reform because of her support in the 1990s for anti-crime legislation that ultimately helped contribute to this era of mass incarceration that she now speaks out again–,” Keilar was saying.
The screen suddenly went black with only the graphics — referring to Donald Trump as “dangerous” — remaining.
“We just lost Brianna Keilar who was in Springfield, Illinois where Hillary Clinton just spoke,” anchor John Berman said, before moving on.
JULY 14, 2016
BY KYLE OLSON
What happened on Tuesday isn’t going to do anything to help CNN shed the “Clinton News Network” moniker.
As reporter Brianna Keilar was appearing live from Hillary’s speech in Springfield, Illinois — and critiquing her record — the feed was mysteriously lost.
“Largely Hillary Clinton’s comments here today, John, were based around the recent violence that we have seen,” Keilar reported.
“The police-involved shootings of black men in Minnesota, in Louisiana, and the killing of white police officers by a black gunman in Dallas. That was really what she based her comments on around today.
“And remember Hillary Clinton has some vulnerabilities herself.
“Even as she calls for criminal justice reform because of her support in the 1990s for anti-crime legislation that ultimately helped contribute to this era of mass incarceration that she now speaks out again–,” Keilar was saying.
The screen suddenly went black with only the graphics — referring to Donald Trump as “dangerous” — remaining.
“We just lost Brianna Keilar who was in Springfield, Illinois where Hillary Clinton just spoke,” anchor John Berman said, before moving on.
“The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know,” by New York Times bestselling author Aaron Klein, documents Clinton herself signed waivers that allowed the facility to be legally occupied, since it did not meet the minimum official security standards set by the State Department.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/hillary-decision-likely-doomed-u-s-ambassador/#0gMEjvoyILJ43p2k.99
(from Klein's book)
Lied in testimony?
Clinton’s plan to arm the rebels was seemingly put into action, Klein notes.
If this is the case, and “the evidence points there,” writes Klein, then Clinton has even more explaining to do because she claimed during her Benghazi testimony that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. asked Clinton a direct question: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, as her voice suddenly jumped an octave. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”
Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
That is not the only instance of possibly inaccurate testimony cited by Klein in “The REAL Benghazi Story.”
She may have erred when she said no one within the government ever recommended the closure of the U.S. facilities in the Libyan city.
In her testimony, Clinton stated: “Well, senator, I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi.” Clinton was responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Clinton’s testimony is contradicted by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally recommended the Benghazi mission be closed, as documented in the 46-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attack. Page six of the report cites security concerns, including over 200 attacks in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi, including against the U.S. mission there.
States the Republican report: “These developments caused Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether.”
Continued the report: “Lt. Col. Wood explained that after the withdrawal of these other organizations, ‘it was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.’”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/hillary-decision-likely-doomed-u-s-ambassador/#0gMEjvoyILJ43p2k.99
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/hillary-decision-likely-doomed-u-s-ambassador/#0gMEjvoyILJ43p2k.99
(from Klein's book)
Lied in testimony?
Clinton’s plan to arm the rebels was seemingly put into action, Klein notes.
If this is the case, and “the evidence points there,” writes Klein, then Clinton has even more explaining to do because she claimed during her Benghazi testimony that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. asked Clinton a direct question: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, as her voice suddenly jumped an octave. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”
Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
That is not the only instance of possibly inaccurate testimony cited by Klein in “The REAL Benghazi Story.”
She may have erred when she said no one within the government ever recommended the closure of the U.S. facilities in the Libyan city.
In her testimony, Clinton stated: “Well, senator, I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi.” Clinton was responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Clinton’s testimony is contradicted by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally recommended the Benghazi mission be closed, as documented in the 46-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attack. Page six of the report cites security concerns, including over 200 attacks in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi, including against the U.S. mission there.
States the Republican report: “These developments caused Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether.”
Continued the report: “Lt. Col. Wood explained that after the withdrawal of these other organizations, ‘it was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.’”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/hillary-decision-likely-doomed-u-s-ambassador/#0gMEjvoyILJ43p2k.99
[h=1]FLASHBACK: Tom Vilsack’s Wife Wrote ‘Inflammatory Columns’ About Minority Groups[/h][h=2]'I am fascinated at the way some African-Americans speak to each other'[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
July 14, 2016 2:45 pm
The wife of Tom Vilsack, Hillary Clinton’s potential running mate, has a history of inflammatory comments about minorities’ speech patterns.
Christie Vilsack, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Iowa in 2012, has been criticized for what the Boston Herald called “inflammatory columns” that “derided blacks, southerners and easterners as bad speakers because she couldn’t understand them.”
“I am fascinated at the way some African-Americans speak to each other in an English I struggle to understand, then switch to standard English when the situation requires,” Vilsack wrote in a 1994 column.
She was also critical of the way people in New Jersey and Pennsylvania speak, saying she would “rather learn to speak Polish” than speak like them.
“Later, on the boardwalk, I heard mothers calling to their children, ‘I’ll meet yoose here after the movie,” she wrote. “The only way I can speak like residents of New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania is to let my jaw drop an inch and talk with my lips in an `O’ like a fish. I’d rather learn to speak Polish.”
In another column following the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, Vilsack said that people in the south have “language problems.”
The comments were highlighted by the Boston Herald in 2004 due to Vilsack’s involvement with John Kerry’s presidential campaign. She was credited with helping Kerry win the Iowa caucus and was given a speaking slot during that year’s Democratic National Convention. Tom Vilsack was Iowa’s governor at the time.
The Kerry campaign brushed off the inflammatory comments about African Americans as “ancient clips.”
Tom Vilsack, who has been Obama’s agriculture secretary since 2009, was described by Washington Post reporterJames Hohmann as a “low-risk choice” for Clinton who could help her in Iowa and with other rural voters who typically do not vote for Democrats.
Vilsack has long been a Clinton ally. He briefly ran for president in 2007 but dropped out to endorse Clinton.
Vilsack has made the rounds on MSNBC, appearing for interviews on Meet the Press on Wednesday afternoon and on Morning Joe and Andrea Mitchell Reports on Thursday.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to an email about Christie Vilsack’s comments.
[/COLOR]
TWEET
Christie Vilsack speaks with husband Tom Vilsack by her side / AP
BY: Brent Scher
July 14, 2016 2:45 pm
The wife of Tom Vilsack, Hillary Clinton’s potential running mate, has a history of inflammatory comments about minorities’ speech patterns.
Christie Vilsack, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Iowa in 2012, has been criticized for what the Boston Herald called “inflammatory columns” that “derided blacks, southerners and easterners as bad speakers because she couldn’t understand them.”
“I am fascinated at the way some African-Americans speak to each other in an English I struggle to understand, then switch to standard English when the situation requires,” Vilsack wrote in a 1994 column.
[COLOR=#AAAAAA !important][COLOR=#79BBE9 !important]
http://inread-experience.teads.tv/[/COLOR]
She was also critical of the way people in New Jersey and Pennsylvania speak, saying she would “rather learn to speak Polish” than speak like them.
“Later, on the boardwalk, I heard mothers calling to their children, ‘I’ll meet yoose here after the movie,” she wrote. “The only way I can speak like residents of New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania is to let my jaw drop an inch and talk with my lips in an `O’ like a fish. I’d rather learn to speak Polish.”
In another column following the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, Vilsack said that people in the south have “language problems.”
The comments were highlighted by the Boston Herald in 2004 due to Vilsack’s involvement with John Kerry’s presidential campaign. She was credited with helping Kerry win the Iowa caucus and was given a speaking slot during that year’s Democratic National Convention. Tom Vilsack was Iowa’s governor at the time.
The Kerry campaign brushed off the inflammatory comments about African Americans as “ancient clips.”
Tom Vilsack, who has been Obama’s agriculture secretary since 2009, was described by Washington Post reporterJames Hohmann as a “low-risk choice” for Clinton who could help her in Iowa and with other rural voters who typically do not vote for Democrats.
Vilsack has long been a Clinton ally. He briefly ran for president in 2007 but dropped out to endorse Clinton.
Vilsack has made the rounds on MSNBC, appearing for interviews on Meet the Press on Wednesday afternoon and on Morning Joe and Andrea Mitchell Reports on Thursday.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to an email about Christie Vilsack’s comments.
[/COLOR]
[h=1]FBI Agents Forced to Sign Special Gag Order in Clinton Investigation[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
July 14, 2016 3:45 pm
The federal agents involved in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server were required to sign a strict non-disclosure agreement that subjected them to lie detector tests, Fox Newsreported on Thursday.
The unusual “Case Briefing Acknowledgement,” the existence of which was confirmed by the FBI, was intended to keep a record of the agents involved in the investigation and prevent outside leaks of sensitive information.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley wrote a letter to FBI director James Comey on July 1 raising questions about the non-disclosure agreement. FBI agents are already prohibited from discussing ongoing investigations, and sources told Fox News that the additional non-disclosure contract is used only in rare cases that are highly sensitive. Fox News reported:
The existence of the contract was first reported by the New York Post earlier this week.
TWEET
AP
BY: Alana Goodman
July 14, 2016 3:45 pm
The federal agents involved in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server were required to sign a strict non-disclosure agreement that subjected them to lie detector tests, Fox Newsreported on Thursday.
The unusual “Case Briefing Acknowledgement,” the existence of which was confirmed by the FBI, was intended to keep a record of the agents involved in the investigation and prevent outside leaks of sensitive information.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley wrote a letter to FBI director James Comey on July 1 raising questions about the non-disclosure agreement. FBI agents are already prohibited from discussing ongoing investigations, and sources told Fox News that the additional non-disclosure contract is used only in rare cases that are highly sensitive. Fox News reported:
The measures show the extent to which the bureau has gone to keep additional details of the politically sensitive case from going public. While Comey has provided some information on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case at a House hearing Tuesday.
A recently retired FBI agent, who declined to speak on the record, citing the sensitivity of the matter, said a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” is reserved for “the most sensitive of sensitive cases,” and can have a “chilling effect” on agents, who understand “it comes from the very top and that there has to be a tight lid on the case.”
In the letter, Grassley raised concerns that the contract could have a chilling effect on whistleblowers who may have disagreed with Comey’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton:A recently retired FBI agent, who declined to speak on the record, citing the sensitivity of the matter, said a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” is reserved for “the most sensitive of sensitive cases,” and can have a “chilling effect” on agents, who understand “it comes from the very top and that there has to be a tight lid on the case.”
“In light of all these inconsistencies, it is even more troubling that the FBI tried to gag its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes,” Grassley said in the strongly worded letter. “…you indicated that agents working on this case were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that failed to exempt protected whistleblowing. Only after I wrote to you did you advise your FBI agents that they are still free to speak with Congress regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.”
In a letter responding to Grassley, the FBI said the purpose of the non-disclosure agreement was “to maintain an official record of all persons knowledgeable of this highly unusual investigation, and to remind individuals of their obligations to protect classified and sensitive information.” The bureau also said that no agents objected to signing the agreement.
The existence of the contract was first reported by the New York Post earlier this week.
[h=1]Rep. Marsha Blackburn Seeks Probe of Clinton Foundation[/h]
AP Photo/Craig Ruttle
by BREITBART NEWS14 Jul 2016384
From Michael Collins writing at USA Today:
Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn is circulating a letter among House members saying media reports raise significant questions about the foundation’s practices and their intersection with American foreign policy.
“These reports, along with recently discovered information about the foundation’s initial tax exempt filings, portray a lawless ‘Pay to Play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated,” the letter says.
The letter will be sent Friday to FBI Director James Comey, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and Edith Ramirez, chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission. Blackburn asks all three agencies to investigate the foundation’s practices.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
113
2
by BREITBART NEWS14 Jul 2016384
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
From Michael Collins writing at USA Today:
A Tennessee congresswoman is asking the FBI and other federal agencies to open a “public corruption” investigation into the activities of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
[FONT=Arial !important]VIDEO: FBI PLAYED ROLE IN RANSOM FOR U.S. HOSTAGE
[COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8)]
[FONT=Arial !important]VIDEO: FBI PLAYED ROLE IN RANSOM FOR U.S. HOSTAGE
[COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8)]
Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn is circulating a letter among House members saying media reports raise significant questions about the foundation’s practices and their intersection with American foreign policy.
“These reports, along with recently discovered information about the foundation’s initial tax exempt filings, portray a lawless ‘Pay to Play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated,” the letter says.
The letter will be sent Friday to FBI Director James Comey, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and Edith Ramirez, chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission. Blackburn asks all three agencies to investigate the foundation’s practices.
