The New York Times is suggesting Hillary Clinton took actions as secretary of state because of financial donations that were made to the Clinton Foundation by Russians pushing for a Canadian uranium company.
The Times reported in an explosive piece on Thursday that Canadian records show the chairman of Russian-owned Uranium One gave over $2 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, which the Clintons’ didn’t disclose. At the same time, Russia pushed for control of a Canadian Uranium company.
A Kremlin-connected bank promoting stock in the company also reportedly paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. Eventually, the Russian-Canadian uranium deal was approved.
“Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown,” the Times writes. “But the 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.”
The Times reporting comes from information it, and other outlets like Fox News, obtained from an upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” written by conservative author Peter Schweizer.
Politico also reports a Canadian donor, Frank Giustra, who pledged over $100 million to the Clinton Foundation, influenced Secretary Clinton’s stance on a Columbia trade deal; Clinton opposed it as a presidential candidate, but flipped as secretary of state.
The Clinton campaign denied that Clinton took any positions as secretary of state due to foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation:
“No one has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interest of donors to The Clinton Foundation. To suggest the State Departments, under then-secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government review of the sale of uranium one is utterly baseless.”