Nothing says "bullshit" like the term "fact check".
Shep Smith is by in large a good reporter. But he is a little off here. The focus of the fact check is not Obama's final approval of the Uranium One deal after the committee of 9 supported it. The important story has to do with how the transaction was born and nurtured and how it ever got to the point that it became ripe for US government approval.
We know that the Russians involved were deeply involved in bribery, racketeering and corruption in the months and years leading up to the deal.
We know that the US state department had lent a helping hand to the players in getting the deal put together.
We know that Hillary's hand-picked surrogate, Jose Fernandez, career wagon was hitched to the Hillary campaign and her seemingly unobstructed path to the White House.
We know that Bill got one-half million dollars for a single speech paid by people interested in the transaction.
We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction.
We know that the DOJ investigation into the Russian agency corruption was kept secret and then quashed, at at time when a little sunlight might have caused this deal to fail. (Didn't somebody say that sunlight is good for democracy).
So Shep Smith's "fact check" that Hillary didn't personally approve the deal is correct. But that fact, of course, isn't relevant to the the corruption that was inextricably intertwined with the deal, who benefited from the corruption, or whether Hillary influenced the deal in any way.
"We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction."
I'm not sure we know this at all,although that is what Schweitzer seems to have his "Clinton Cash" reading minions believing.I'm curious how much total $$ you feel is involved here,and how much of it you believe came from "Russian interests"?The number I've heard is $145 Million,with $135 Million of that coming from Frank Giustra. I'm also wondering when exactly you feel all of this $$ from folks "interested in this transaction" supposedly flowed into the CF coffers?
The problem with all of these "Russian interest" claims is that google exists,and facts are facts.The main contributor all along is Giustra (who is Canadian not Russian.)Shep mentions that Giustra sold his company in 2007,but fails to mention that 2007 was also when Giustra pledged his donation of $135 Million,which may have come from the sale of his interests in his company to the entity which became Uranium One...
FRIDAY
JUL 06
2007
Press Release: Lundin Group Commits $100 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative
New York
PRESS RELEASE
Vancouver's Lundin Group Commits $100 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.
Vancouver-based Lundin for Africa, the philanthropic arm of the Lundin Group of Companies, has pledged $100 million to the Clinton Foundation's recently announced Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI), which is aimed at alleviating poverty and building sustainable local economies in developing countries. The Lundin for Africa commitment will be aimed, in large part, at approved projects in Africa, where the Lundin Group has significant mining, oil and gas interests.
The contribution, announced today by former President Bill Clinton, matches the $100 million individual donations made by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra and Mexican businessman Carlos Slim when the initiative was launched last month in New York.
"When Frank Giustra brought forward the idea of having the world's mining sector pull together in support of alleviating poverty and building sustainable local economies in developing countries, I knew it would only succeed if the industry was serious about being actively involved," said President Clinton. "Today's generous support by the Lundin Group is to be applauded because it demonstrates the potential of this global initiative to capture the imagination and support of the mining sector. The fact that more and more companies are joining us gives me confidence that while we've only just begun, we're headed in the right direction."
Giustra added that he expects the CGSGI to complement the aid work Lundin for Africa is already carrying out in five African countries."
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/m...illion-to-clinton-giustra-sustainable-gr.html
Now I haven't read "Clinton Cash",but something tells me none of this info is enclosed in Schweitzer's description of "Uranium One".Just the cynic in me,I guess...
So I guess I'm having a problem finding exactly where the corruption in this story is? I'm not one of those that discounts the actual charitable intentions of the CF,and I think the notion that the CF is some sort of nefarious plot to line the Clinton's personal coffers is just more of the right wing nut paranoid delusions.Mainly because it seems like such unecessary overkill,from 2 people who showed a genuine propensity for helping others dating back to their entry into politics in the first place.
The fact that they have seemingly been able to transfer that paranoia to some folks I would otherwise consider "rationale" strikes me as a testament of how cunning some of these Breitbart types are.IIRC when HRC left Govt she had a pretty high approval rating,and the fact that the apparatus was able thru Benghazi and other manufactured
"Clinton misdeeds" to drive that favorable rating into the ground would have Lee Atwater grinning from ear to ear.
Ironically some of the cynicism related to the charitable nature of the CF seems to revolve around the fact that the Trump F is such a fraudulent entity that it gives even legitimate charities a bad name.I'd argue that the Clintons have a much more distinguished record of actually helping people,but obviously amidst the anti-Clinton fervor that was successfully stirred up those accomplishments are for a large number of folks pretty easy to deny.