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.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation's annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

When Republicans were asked about U.S.–Israel relations, 30 percent favored this statement: “Israel is an ally but we should pursue America’s interests when we disagree with them.” Sixty-seven percent supported this option instead: “Israel is an important ally, the only democracy in the region, and we should support it even if our interests diverge.”

When Republicans are asked to pick from a range of guiding principles, almost as many choose Israeli interests as U.S. interests. Most Republicans, in the absence of a two-state solution, prefer Israeli control of Palestinians, through occupation or annexation, to a single integrated country with equal rights. Thirty-seven percent of Republicans consider Israel one of their top five issues ... by a wide margin, this segment of the GOP cares more about Israeli interests than about American interests, human rights, or any other principle.

“Israel is an important ally, the only democracy in the region, and we should support it even if our interests diverge.”

Thirty-seven percent of Republicans consider Israel one of their top five issues ... by a wide margin, this segment of the GOP cares more about Israeli interests than about American interests, human rights, or any other principle.

pacino wrote:

“Israel is an important ally, the only democracy in the region, and we should support it even if our interests diverge.”

huh

TomatoPie wrote:Tony Scalia and Baby Ruth Ginsburg: Peas in a Pod

jerseyhoya wrote:

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation's annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

AYFKM?

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation's annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

AYFKM?

So is this a real issue or one made to look that way by the GOP propaganda machine? I can't tell the difference anymore. Benghazi was supposed to be the smoking gun that brought her down, but even the GOP controlled investigations in the House and elsewhere agreed that it was nothing. It didn't stop you from posting about it and it certainly didn't stop Fox and the GOP attack dogs from continuing to say stuff that their own investigations proved to be incorrect, but that's a side point. I personally don't really want Clinton to be the nominee, partly because I don't like her corporate/banking politics and partly because I don't want to listen to this nonsense (if it is nonsense -- again, I can't tell anymore).

If I'm any indication, and I may not be, the GOP hopes may hinge on what % of the population has completely turned them off when it comes to these "controversies." I have no idea if it's true or if she did nothing wrong, and I have no desire to spend time reading a bunch of stuff that may just be about nothing, so my default position is to ignore it and assume it's made up nonsense.I wonder how many others will feel the same way, especially about Clinton.

I think there's a story about a boy crying about a wolf that might be more informative than my story, but you get the gist.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:gee I wonder if businesses get the better end of this over the middle class

Monkeyboy wrote: Benghazi was supposed to be the smoking gun that brought her down, but even the GOP controlled investigations in the House and elsewhere agreed that it was nothing.

pacino wrote:TPP is gettin' fast-tracked. Can't trust Obama with any power EXCEPT TRADE DEALS!!!! Passed 13-7

Have to admit, the only person being consistent here is Obama but it seems unnecessarily secretive.