index

The scandal with Hillary Clinton continues to grow as three prominent news affiliates reported questionable or at the least highly inappropriate dealings by the Clinton Foundation with foreign countries and entities.

The Wall Street Journal, the Washington, Post and the New York Time’s each had articles which allege a conflict of interest by the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons themselves.

The New York Times reported 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 former President Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The total aspect of this allegation is that the leadership of the Canadian mining industry had been major donors to the Clinton foundation, and to charitable working of former President Bill Clinton and his family.  This group had total involvement that sold this to the Russians a company which became “Uranium One.”

The Times continued in its reporting, 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.

Continuing, 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.

Now the Washington Post reported that Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation data.

The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013, demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth.

With the Washington Post reporting that according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton between 2001-2013, Bill Clinton made over $100 million in speeches while she served as a U.S. senator and Secretary of State.

The continued aspect of this controversy is that the foundation accepted donations from foreign companies, and continues to do so; now just from select countries, all the while she is running for president.

The Clinton campaign and various surrogates have begun attacking the author Peter Schweitzer of an upcoming book titled, “Clinton Cash” as just a partisan hack with dubious investigative credentials.

The issue at stake why is it proper for a sitting Secretary of State and presidential candidate to accept foreign donations?

What transpired between foreign countries, donations to the foundations and why they received preferential treatment on various projects?

This controversy comes on the heels of the email scandal in which Hillary Clinton had a private server in her residence in which she conducted private business while serving as Secretary of State. Then decided on her own to delete what she deemed personnel.

There are too many answered questions and if you take the partisan politics out of this and just look at this objectively you can see that something is truly amiss here.