FLASHBACK FRIDAY: Read What the NY Times Said About the Clinton Fund and Uranium One Deal in 2015

Former President of USA Bill Clinton, left, speaks during the launch of Pediatric HIV/AIDS in Kenya, as Kenyan Minister of Health Charity Ngilu, centre right, listens at Mbagathi Hospital Nairobi, Kenya, Saturday, July 23, 2005. Clinton and Kenyan Minister of Health Charity Ngilu launched the Clinton Foundation Pedriatic HIV/AIDS initiative in Kenya at Mbagathi Hospital. Clinton is on a two day visit to Kenya. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)

Streiff covered the burgeoning investigation into the Clinton Foundation and their involvement in the Uranium One deal as it broke last night. As progressives and the media attempt to downplay the story and call it much ado about nothing (because they will), it’s informative to go back and look at what those same outlets were saying three years ago when Obama was still in office and Hillary’s campaign for president was just a glimmer in someone’s eye.


The New York Times published an in-depth piece in April 2015 that covers the corrupt bases — the Canadian businessmen that ran Uranium One and their gifts to the Clinton Foundation; the speaking fees Bill Clinton was given by Russian investment bankers with ties to the Kremlin even as Putin sought to close the deal; the federal agencies that were required to sign off on the deal, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s home base of the State Department.

It’s all very revealing. Particularly the time frame regarding payouts to the Clintons and the deal’s progress as it ultimately handed over a huge portion of the U.S. uranium production capacity to Putin and Russia.

“[S]hortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. [Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

You don’t say.

And there’s so much more where that came from.

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 a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

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.


The piece is exhaustive and covers the players, the national security concerns of the deal, and undisclosed donations given to the Clinton Foundation during the time of the deal from those who had an interest in seeing it through.

Most revealing is that the piece acknowledges that the relationship with Russia had gotten increasingly strained since the deal had gone through, despite it’s “relatively smooth” approval.

It’s worth a read and worth asking why the New York Times, just before Clinton began her campaign in earnest, would produce a piece so damning of the Clinton Foundation, all but accusing them of engaging in pay-to-play shenanigans.

Could it be to protect the legacy of another Democrat, one who was about to leave office?


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos