Hillary Clinton says Uranium One ‘Debunked’ [VIDEO]
The Democrats almost always tell you what they are up to.
And they do it IN YO FACE!
During an interview with C-SPAN, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to downplay what may be the biggest scandal in modern American history. She literally gives you the play-by-play for what the Left have tried to do to Donald Trump for well over a year now.
“I would say it’s the same baloney they’ve been peddling for years, and there’s been no credible evidence by anyone. In fact, it’s been debunked repeatedly and will continue to be debunked.”
“But here is what they are doing and I have to give them credit. Trump and his allies, including Fox News, are really experts at distraction and diversion. So the closer the investigation about real Russian ties between Trump associates and real Russians, as we heard Jeff Sessions finally admit to in his testimony the other day, the more they want to just throw mud on the wall. I’m their favorite target. Me and President Obama, we are the ones they like to put in the crosshairs.”
That’s right, Uranium One has been “debunked”. And all the talk around the facts around the Uranium One deal mean nothing.
What are those facts?
The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. The story detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom stealthily acquired the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013. This timeline coincides with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
The Hill reported recently that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering”. This effort centered around expansion of Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. The Obama Justice Department run by Eric Holder sat on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.
Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank shortly after Russia announced its intention to take a majority stake in the company. According to the Times, Clinton traveled to Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for its majority stake in Uranium One.
Finally, according to the Times, The Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, a mining investor who was also the chairman of Uranium One when Rosatom acquired it. It also received $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more from Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier whose company merged with Uranium One.
Now I dare the Left to compare these facts to the snipe hunt currently underway involving President Trump or any of his satellites. I took the liberty of providing a link to the anti-Trump Washington Post’s timeline on Donald Trump’s involvement in Russia, and I ask that you point to just ONE FACT of Trump’s involvement with the Ruskies.
Here’s an excerpt:
There are so many twists and turns in the story involving President Trump and his team and Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections. As a public service, The Fact Checker is keeping track of the various tentacles of this complex saga, and highlighting any inconsistencies or falsehoods we can find.
Reviewing our fact checks so far, it’s clear that in many cases, the White House’s rhetoric shifted as The Washington Post or the New York Times uncovered new information, and revealed that officials were being misleading or obfuscating the truth with their rhetoric. Since January 2017, we compiled numerous timelines just to keep track of what Trump and his aides said, when they said it, what the public knew at the time of their statements, and how they shifted over time. We also fact-checked misleading attacks by Democrats about actions by Trump administration officials.
So look for yourself, and find those “twists and turns” that inevitably lead to nowhere. Then ask yourself why the Washington Post hasn’t done anything close to due diligence on the very obvious, and fact-filled Clinton connection to Russia.
This leads to one other question: Given the Clintons ties to Russia, why would they interfere with the election on behalf of Trump?