Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been critical of Donald Trump’s alleged coziness with Russia. This could boomerang on Clinton, however, and not just because of her own lead role in the Obama administration’s failed attempt at a Russian “reset.” Perhaps because it hit the newsstands before the presidential campaign hit full stride, many seem to have forgotten a New York Times report that ran last spring. That report discussed the key roles apparently played by both the Clinton Foundation and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Russia’s successful acquisition of 20 percent of United States uranium reserves.
In a piece entitled, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal” (or, in the print version, “The Clintons, The Russians, and Uranium”), the Times wrote of events that “brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”:
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 deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s [the Russian atomic energy agency’s] chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin…. The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side. The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev…. [S]everal months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation…. Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
The Times sums matters up:
[T]he episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
After the story was published, Mitt Romney stated that “it looks like bribery.” He said, “I presume we might know for sure whether there was bribery or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.” Romney added that “this is bigger than just her presidential campaign. I mean, this is a question about whether or not the United States Secretary of State was bribed to grease the sale of strategic assets to Russia.”
