“Clinton Cash” Debunked

Forbes: Giustra had already pledged $5 million to the Clinton Foundation “months prior to the trip.” “The Times makes much of Giustra’s post-trip pledge to the Clinton Foundation of $31 million but failed to mention that Giustra had already pledged in July 2005 an initial $5 million months prior to the trip. As Khan tells it, at the time of the trip ‘all the president knew was that Frank was in the mining business and wanted to become a world-class philanthropist.’” [Forbes, 1/12/09]

Dick Cheney, on Nazarbayev: “I consider him my friend.” “And I’m delighted to be here as a guest of President Nazarbayev today. We met some years ago and I consider him my friend, and I’m delighted to have the opportunity to visit him here in this beautiful new capital of Kazakhstan. And on behalf of the President, George Bush, and the American people, I want to extend our best wishes from the American people to the people of Kazakhstan.” [“Vice President’s Remarks in a Press Availability with President Nursultan Nazarbayev of the Republic of Kazakhstan,” archives.gov, 5/5/06]

U.S. News: “The deal also needed the OK from other Obama cabinet reps.” “Canadian businessmen and others, including investors in a now Russian-owned mining company, kicked in millions to the Clinton Foundation alongside complex, multiple-nation business dealings that culminated in the company holding a major portion of U.S. uranium production capacity. The story’s payoff: The key deal had to be approved by Hillary Clinton or one of her State Department underlings. But a close reading of the Times story reveals the deal also needed the OK from other Obama cabinet reps, and even though Hillary Clinton didn’t report the entirety of the foundation’s connection to the White House as required, no one directly accused her and her husband of participating in a pay-to-play scheme.” [U.S. News, 5/1/15]

TIME: The Russian conglomerate also had to get approval from numerous independent agencies “outside of the State Department’s purview.” “Before purchasing a controlling stake in Uranium One, the Russian conglomerate also had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency outside of the State Department’s purview, as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator. It also received the sign-off of Canada’s foreign investment review agency. The deal itself was the outgrowth of a diplomatic initiative launched by the Administration of George W. Bush to expand trade opportunities between Russia and the U.S., including in the area of nuclear power.” [TIME, 4/22/15]

Politico Magazine: “The Clinton State Department was only one member of a powerful government committee that approved the deal,” and “the Canadian government also had to sign off.” “The New York Times story, meanwhile, tries to suggest that Hillary Clinton may have been swayed into approving the Rosatom buyout of Giustra’s company, Uranium One, because of all the money that Giustra and his fellow investor, Ian Telfer, were giving to the Clinton Foundation. But as the story notes, the Clinton State Department was only one member of a powerful government committee that approved the deal, and which also included the attorney general and the departments of Treasury, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy. The Canadian government also had a sign-off. And Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told the Times that these decisions were typically handled below Clinton’s level. The Times produced no evidence she was personally involved.” [Politico Magazine, 4/25/15]

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “Ultimately this decision [to approve the Uranium One deal] is influenced and controlled by the White House.” LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: “But okay, having set the table with all of that, the question ultimately becomes State Department approval of this uranium deal. Was there anything wrong with it? What is very likely this is my guess as I sit here this morning, the State Department headed by anyone would have approved that at that time.” SCARBOROUGH: “How do you know that?” O’DONNELL: “I think. I’m going to place a bet but I’m not going to tell you why we probably won’t ever know the answer to this. But my bet is that there is an advisory chain of email in the State Department that can tell us exactly how this decision was made. And it is probably –” SCARBOROUGH: “The email chain? Are you being sarcastic? We don’t have Hillary Clinton’s emails –” O’DONNELL: “No, I’m not. We’re going to get a lot of it. We will get a lot of that email because obviously there will be an investigation of this. Well we will get a lot of the advisory information that went to the Secretary on this. It is probably a majority in favor, there might be some dissent within that advisory chain. But ultimately this decision is influenced and controlled by the White House.” [MSNBC’s Morning Joe, 4/23/15]

Clinton campaign: The argument “ignores that U.S. regulators accepted a subsequent sale of the remaining stake in Uranium One to Russia after Clinton left the State Department.” According to Hillary for America’s Brian Fallon, “The Times ignores that U.S. regulators accepted a subsequent sale of the remaining stake in Uranium One to Russia after Clinton left the State Department. The 2010 sale at issue in the Times story involved the Russians purchasing a 51 percent stake in Uranium One. But nearly three years later, the company announced that the Russians would be increasing their ownership to 100 percent. The company notified U.S. regulators of this in late January 2013, giving those bodies the opportunity to subject the new transaction to a review. Both the NRC and C.F.I.U.S. declined to do so, which was tantamount to green-lighting the deal. Notably this acceptance of the Russians’ complete takeover of Uranium One came after Secretary Clinton exited the State Department.” [Fallon, Medium, 4/23/15]

TIME: The Uranium One sale “was an outgrowth of a diplomatic initiative launched by the Administration of George W. Bush.” “Before purchasing a controlling stake in Uranium One, the Russian conglomerate also had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent agency outside of the State Department’s purview, as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator. It also received the sign-off of Canada’s foreign investment review agency. The deal itself was the outgrowth of a diplomatic initiative launched by the Administration of George W. Bush to expand trade opportunities between Russia and the U.S., including in the area of nuclear power.” [TIME, 4/22/15]

BuzzFeed: “There is no evidence the donations played a role” in the approval of the Uranium One sale. “The New York Times last week followed on reporting in Schweizer’s book about the gradual takeover of a uranium mining company by Russian interests, as people associated or formerly associated with the company donated millions to the Clintons’ foundation. The Russian acquisition was approved by a committee of U.S. cabinet officials, including Hillary Clinton, though there is no evidence the donations played a role in that decision.” [BuzzFeed, 4/28/15]

Uranium One’s chairman said that he started donating to the Clinton Foundation “before there was any idea of this takeover.” “Mr. Telfer, in an interview Wednesday, said he made the contributions not for the sake of the Clintons, but to support his longtime business partner, Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining executive and longtime Clinton friend who co-founded the program to spur development in poor countries. ‘The donations started before there was any idea of this takeover,’ Mr. Telfer said. ‘And I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton would have been aware of this donation to this growth initiative,’ he added.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/15]

Giustra: “There is not one shred of evidence to back up” the claim that his Clinton Foundation contributions were related to the approval of the Uranium One sale. “Giustra took specific aim at a report this week in the New York Times that suggested his contributions to the Clinton Foundation were aimed at gaining the blessing of the State Department — then about to be headed by Hillary Clinton — for a lucrative uranium deal involving Russian and Kazakh interests. ‘There is not one shred of evidence to back up the Times’ conclusions,’ Giustra wrote. ‘This is not about me, but rather an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad.’” [International Business Times, 4/24/15]

Schweizer: Each of the nine agencies on the committee had “veto power,” which Sec. Clinton declined to use. WALLACE: “And CFIUS is that the committee that approves in October of 2010 the sale to Russia.” SCHWEIZER: “Right.” WALLACE: “Or the Russian company with close ties to Vladimir Putin. This is precisely the point that the Clinton campaign has hit back on hard, because CFIUS is a committee of nine agencies. Not just the State Department.” SCHWEIZER: “Correct, yes.” WALLACE: “Nine separate agencies and they point out there’s no hard evidence, and you don’t cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?” SCHWEIZER: “Well, here’s what’s important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.” [Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, 4/26/15]

FactCheck.org: The book “presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions.” “Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions. The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)” [FactCheck.org, 4/29/15]

Clinton campaign: “The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department’s review of the sale to the Russians.” According to Hillary for America’s Brian Fallon, “The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department’s review of the sale to the Russians. While it is true that the State Department sits on the multi-agency, inter-governmental panel that reviews deals like this one, Hillary Clinton herself did not participate in the review or direct the Department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. This is consistent with past practice; historically, matters pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.) do not rise to the Secretary’s level. Rather, it is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs who serves as the State Department’s principal representative to C.F.I.U.S. The individual who held that post in 2010 was Jose Fernandez, and he has personally attested that then-Secretary Clinton never interfered with him, saying ‘Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.’” [Fallon, Medium, 4/23/15]

Clinton campaign: The New York Times article about the Uranium One deal itself “debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.” According to Hillary for America’s Brian Fallon, “Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.” [Fallon, Medium, 4/23/15]

TIME: The book “offers no indication of Hillary Clinton’s personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations.” “The State Department’s role in approving the deal was part of an extensive bureaucratic process, and the chapter offers no indication of Hillary Clinton’s personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations. State has just one vote on the nine-member committee, which also includes the departments of Defense, Treasury and Energy. Disagreements are traditionally handled at the staff level, and if they are not resolved, they are escalated to deputies at the relevant agencies. If the deputies can’t resolve the dispute, the issues can be elevated to the Cabinet Secretary level and, if needed, to the President for a decision. The official chairman of CFIUS is the Treasury Secretary, not the Secretary of State.” [TIME, 4/22/15]

Clinton campaign: Uranium One’s chairman “specifically said he never spoke to [Sec. Clinton] about the deal.” According to Hillary for America’s Brian Fallon, “A second Clinton Foundation donor referenced in the Times has specifically said he never spoke to her about the deal. In addition to Mr. Giustra himself, the Times points to a second Clinton Foundation donor and longtime business associate of Mr. Giustra by the name of Ian Telfer. It is true that, unlike Mr. Giustra, Telfer — as the acting head of Uranium One in 2010 — had a financial interest in the company’s sale to the Russians. It is also true that he had previously donated to the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. But in a statement to the Times, Telfer told the paper he made the donations based on his wish to personally support Mr. Giustra in his charitable work, not based on any relationship to the Clintons. And most importantly, he told the Times that he never spoke to either President Clinton or then-Secretary Clinton about his company, Uranium One.” [Fallon, Medium, 4/23/15]

Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who served as State’s principal representative on the committee that approved the deal: “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” “One official involved in the process said Clinton had nothing to do with the decision in the Uranium One case. Jose Hernandez, who as former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs was the State Department’s principal representative on the committee, rejected the notion that Clinton’s foundation ties had any bearing on the deal. ‘Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,’ he told TIME.” [TIME, 4/22/15]

Fox News’ Chris Wallace to Schweizer, regarding the Uranium One sale: “You don’t have a single piece of evidence that she was involved in this deal.” “SCHWEIZER: What’s also happening in 2010, basically they’re claiming she didn’t know about this deal. In 2010 when this deal is going down, she’s responsible for the A123 civilian nuclear negotiations with the Russian government. She’s point person with Russian reset. You’ve got four senior members of Congress who have written a letter expressing concerns about this deal. WALLACE: But, again, if I may, you don’t have a single piece of evidence that she was involved in this deal, that she sent a memo to the person — the State Department representative who was on this committee and said, hey, we want to approve the Uranium One sale.” [Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, 4/26/15]

Washington Post’s Plum Line blog: “We have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don’t have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise.” “So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don’t have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise. In interviews, Schweitzer has referred repeated to ‘dozens of examples’ and ‘a pattern’ in which donations are made to the foundation and official action by Hillary Clinton occurs thereafter. His book hasn’t come out, so we don’t yet know what he’s referring to, but in the uranium case, there doesn’t appear to be any official action Hillary Clinton took one way or another.” [Plum Line, Washington Post, 4/27/15]

George Stephanopoulos: “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action.” “The most significant of the allegations center on a Russian company that was approved by the State Department to purchase a Canadian uranium company, giving Russia a sizable stake in the world’s uranium market, after a $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation. But Stephanopoulos pointed out that the State Department was one of nine agencies that signed off on the deal, and that ‘there’s no evidence at all that Hillary Clinton got directly involved at all in this decision.’ (A similar argument was made by Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis over on Fox News Sunday.)… ‘We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action,’ Stephanopoulos said. ‘And an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation.’ Is there a smoking gun?’” [Mediaite, 4/26/15]

Giustra spokeswoman: Giustra sold his stake in the Uranium One in 2007. “If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.” [New York Times, 4/23/15]

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “Our research shows she didn’t” go from opposing the deal to supporting it, but rather supported it all along. MITCHELL: “Let me ask you about India. You write that in 2008, then-Senator Clinton reversed course. She supported a nuclear deal for India after meeting for two years with prominent Indian billionaires, Indian lobbyists and business leaders, who were donating millions and millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Our own research shows that two years earlier, Hillary Clinton declared support as a senator for nuclear cooperation. As early as 2004 she was co-chair of the Senate India caucus. She traveled to India as the First Lady. She had longstanding connections with the communities there.” SCHWEIZER: “She did. Yes.” MITCHELL: “So is it fair or accurate to say that she reversed course when our indication, our research shows she didn’t – that the money, the subsequent donations, could have influenced this when she had already made those decisions?” [MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, 5/1/15]

• Within a few days of Singh’s visit, Congress approved the U.S.-India nuclear agreement. “In September, Amar Singh visited Washington to lobby Congress to support a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear fuel and technology from the United States. The deal was controversial because India has developed nuclear weapons but is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Singh met with Senator Clinton, afterward telling Indian reporters that she had assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved the nuclear cooperation deal a few days later.” [New York Times, 12/19/08]

Charity Navigator: “A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.” “What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated? It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.” [“Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” Charity Navigator, accessed 5/4/15]

OLD NEWS:

 About 100 State Department employees have SGE status. “So who else is a special government employee at the State Department? The department won’t say — even as eight other federal agencies readily sent us lists of their own special government employees. A State Department spokeswoman did confirm that there are ‘about 100’ such employees. But asked for a list, she added that, ‘As general policy, [the department] does not disclose employee information of this nature.’ Creating such a list would require ‘extensive research’ and thus the agency is not required to respond under FOIA, said a letter responding to our request.” [ProPublica, 11/13/13]

OLD NEWS:

Huma Abedin was granted SGE status at the State Department, allowing her to work as a part-time consultant there while representing outside clients. “Huma Abedin — Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide and the wife of all-but-declared New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner — spent her final months at the State Department working as a part-time consultant with the agency who at the same time was allowed to represent outside clients, POLITICO has confirmed. Abedin, a fixture at the Clintons’ side for at least 15 years — from Iowa to Indonesia — shifted to her new role after maternity leave in the early summer of 2012, according to a source familiar with the arrangement. The new status made her a ‘special government employee,’ which was tantamount to being a consultant, according to the source, whose information was confirmed by two other staffers familiar with the matter.” [Politico, 5/16/13]

• Abedin simultaneously worked for the State Department, Sec. Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo. “Multiple sources told POLITICO Abedin did work for other clients, which a friend of Abedin said totaled four, including the State Department, Hillary Clinton, the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and Teneo, the firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band.” [Politico, 5/16/13]

As of August 2013, Cheryl Mills was still working on Haiti-related projects at the State Department as a special government employee. According to the Washington Post’s Al Kamen, “We hear former secretary Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, is still checking in at Foggy Bottom as a ‘special government employee,’ working on Haiti matters.” [Kamen, Washington Post, 8/14/13]

In most cases, Sec. Clinton did not disclose the secondary hosts of Pres. Clinton’s speeches, some of whom were associated with foreign governments or had interests before the U.S. government. “The Post analysis also revealed aspects of Bill Clinton’s paid speaking career during Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department that were not clear from her public filings. Those included: The role played by dozens of companies and organizations, some of them associated with foreign governments or with interests before the U.S. government, in serving as secondary hosts for a number of the speeches. In her filings, Hillary Clinton typically disclosed only the primary sponsor of each speech. One such ‘sub-sponsor’ was Boeing, a major government contractor whose interests Hillary Clinton promoted in her official duties at the State Department.” [Washington Post, 4/22/15]

President Clinton made 10 speeches for TD Bank and earned $1.8 million. “The Post’s analysis found that TD Bank underwrote 10 of Clinton’s speeches and paid him about $1.8 million, making it his largest single sponsor in the financial industry. TD Bank is affiliated with TD Ameritrade, founded by Joe Ricketts, a prominent donor to Republican campaigns and conservative causes. TD Bank spokesman Gabriel Weissman said he had ‘nothing to add’ to the public disclosures. A spokesman for Ricketts declined to comment.” [Washington Post, 6/26/14]

TD Bank called the expansion of Canada’s pipelines a “national priority” that is necessary for the long-term growth of the country’s oil industry. “Environmental groups on Thursday used statements by supporters of the proposed Canada-U.S. Keystone XL pipeline to undermine the argument that Canada’s tar sands will be developed without the project, so the impact on greenhouse gases will be the same. A report put together by more than a dozen green groups compiles statements by industry and government officials, financial analysts and green groups to argue that the 830,000 b/d oil pipeline is essential for the development of the tar sands, and would in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions. […] It cited a recent research note by oil sands investor Royal Bank of Canada that said: ‘President Obama’s ultimate decision on the Keystone XL pipeline constitutes a watershed event for Canadian oil producers — and the shape of oil sands growth.’ It also referred to a December research note by Toronto-Dominion Bank, which called the expansion of Canada’s pipelines a ‘national priority’ that is necessary for the oil industry’s long-term growth.” [Reuters, 8/29/13]

Yahoo News: The sanctions “were imposed by Obama via executive action, not by Clinton.” “Fallon points out that the November 2011 sanctions were imposed by Obama via executive action, not by Clinton. ‘This is a case of sloppy research,’ he said. ‘Ericsson was not carved out from anything in 2011. That round of sanctions specifically dealt with companies assisting Iran’s petroleum sector and nuclear energy, not the telecom industry.’ As for the April 2012 executive order, it ‘was directed at the users of technology who sought to stifle dissidents, as opposed to the equipment manufacturers like Ericsson.’” [Yahoo News, 4/22/15]

Schweizer himself said that there was no “evidence of a quid pro quo.” “Ericsson, for example, had never paid Bill Clinton to give a speech before. His average speaking fee before Hillary became Secretary of State is about $190,000. Suddenly, out of the blue, while they are named in State Department reports – and there’s several examples, not just the one you cited, involving Ericsson and the State Department – they suddenly in the midst decide to pay him $750,000. Is there evidence of a quid pro quo in that case? No, I’m not saying that. But it should be troubling for us that the day of January 2009, Bill Clinton’s speaking fees from foreign overseas interests, governments, and corporations, triples, triples.” [MSNBC’s Morning Joe, 4/28/15]

·       Chagoury sponsored an exhibit at the library about Pres. Bush’s global diplomacy. “The Art of Leadership: A President’s Personal Diplomacy explores the relationships that President George W. Bush forged with world leaders to shape international policy and advance American interests abroad. Open from April 5 to June 3, 2014, the exhibit features thirty never-before-exhibited portraits painted by President Bush. Portraits are accompanied by artifacts, photographs, and personal reflections to help illustrate the stories of relationships formed on the world stage.” The list of the exhibit’s supporters includes Gilbert Chagoury. [Bush Center, accessed 5/1/15]

Lundin Petroleum came under investigation by the Swedish government in 2010 for potentially being complicit in “war crimes and crimes against humanity” in Sudan. “Swedish public prosecutor Magnus Elving launched a formal investigation Monday sparked by allegations that an oil consortium led by Swedish firm Lundin Petroleum may have been complicit in ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity’ in Sudan. The case, which has links to Sweden’s foreign minister, has raised questions about international obligations of companies to safeguard human rights in conflict zones. The investigation into the alleged activity, which occurred between 1997 and 2003, resulted from a recent report by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan, or ECOS, a group of 50 European NGOs.” [Christian Science Monitor, 6/22/10]

Sec. Clinton began supporting the U.S.-Colombia free trade deal in 2009, after which two Giustra-linked companies received awards from the Colombian government. “But by 2009, as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was telling Uribe she was supportive of the trade deal. And in 2010, she visited Colombia while her husband was there with Giustra. ‘Days after Hillary left Bogota, Prima Colombia Properties, which Frank Giustra has ownership interest in through a shell company called Flagship Industries, announced that it had acquired the right to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline,’ Schweizer writes. ‘Days later, Pacific Rubiales Energy, a company for which Giustra was the Canadian face, announced that the Uribe government was giving the company the right to drill for oil on six lucrative plots.’” [Politico, 4/22/15]

Former Obama deputy senior adviser Stephanie Cutter: “That’s absolutely ridiculous.” “Former members of Obama’s White House team — who are supportive of Clinton’s 2016 campaign — have also questioned the idea that one person would be able to sway an entire trade deal. ‘That’s absolutely ridiculous,’ Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s former deputy senior adviser, said Sunday on CNN. ‘I worked on the Colombia free deal for years. And if one person could put their finger on the scale, believe me, I would have found that. It just was not possible.’” [CNN, 4/27/15]

Hillary Clinton was a vocal opponent of the U.S.-Colombia free trade deal even after Giustra donated $131 million to the Clinton Foundation. According to the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, “Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $131 million—$31 million in 2006, [NOTE: this initially said 2005 but has been corrected] and another $100 million pledged that same year that he made good on over the next three years, up through 2008. Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! ‘I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,’ she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April.” [Tomasky, Daily Beast, 4/22/15]

·       Clinton campaign: The book fails to explain why Sec. Clinton “opposed the free trade deal so vocally throughout 2008” if she was “seeking to assist people who donated to the Clinton Foundation in 2006 and 2007.” “‘Her support for the deal came only after she joined the Obama administration, when key worker protections were added to the package,’ spokesman Brian Fallon said. ‘By that point, the agreement was an administration-wide priority, and then-Secretary Clinton’s statements in support of the deal reflected the administration’s position.’ He said that ‘in a book full of partisan conspiracy theories, this is among the most laughable. The author conveniently forgets to explain why, if Hillary Clinton was seeking to assist people who donated to the Clinton Foundation in 2006 and 2007, she opposed the free trade deal so vocally throughout 2008.’” [Politico, 4/22/15]

Daily Beast: “If Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband.” According to the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, “The man whose business interests the Colombia deal apparently advanced was named Frank Giustra, a Bill friend who has, as we shall see, come up before in the media in this connection. Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $131 million—$31 million in 2006, [NOTE: this initially said 2005 but has been corrected] and another $100 million pledged that same year that he made good on over the next three years, up through 2008. Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so!” [Tomasky, Daily Beast, 4/22/15]

Daily Beast: “For Clinton to have known in 2008 that all this would play out to Frank Giustra’s benefit,” she would have to have predicted that Obama would both win the election and appoint her as Secretary of State. According to the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, “‘I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,’ she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April. That’s not exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if you’re a committed enough Clintonologist, you can turn it all into a conspiracy—she was just opposing it then to throw the rest of us off the scent, but she’d support it later when it mattered. […] Now, for Clinton to have known in 2008 that all this would play out to Frank Giustra’s benefit, she would have had to have known that Obama was going to beat John McCain and, rather more improbably than that, that Obama was going to appoint her to be his Secretary of State. But those wily Clintons know things like that, see.” [Tomasky, Daily Beast, 4/22/15]

Politico Magazine: “It is noteworthy that it was after Giustra contributed $100 million to the foundation in 2006 that Hillary Clinton first announced her opposition to free-trade pact.” “Consider: The Colombian free-trade pact was first signed under George W. Bush and then President Obama took the lead, but held out for more labor and environmental concessions. It was only in 2011—after a two-year standoff—that the Obama administration and Colombia negotiated an ‘action plan’ to try to protect labor rights in a way not necessarily favorable to Pacific Rubiales. Indeed, it is noteworthy that it was after Giustra contributed $100 million to the foundation in 2006 that Hillary Clinton first announced her opposition to free-trade pact. The book may also raise questions about how Hillary Clinton’s State Department certified annually that Colombia was ‘meeting statutory criteria related to human rights’ in order to help the Colombian military. But in fact Colombia is said to have made substantial progress emerging from its past as a violent narco-state, and is considered by many military and diplomatic experts to warrant this treatment.” [Politico Magazine, 4/25/15]

Politico: The book “presents little evidence” that Sec. Clinton’s support of the U.S.-Colombia free trade deal “was directly linked to Giustra’s contributions.” “While stopping short of a direct accusation, the chapter, entitled ‘Rainforest Riches,’ implies there was a blurred line between Bill Clinton’s charity work and Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department — ultimately leading to her support of the trade deal. But Schweizer presents little evidence that Clinton’s support of the trade deal was directly linked to Guistra’s contributions or to his close relationship with Bill Clinton.” [Politico, 4/22/15]

Clinton campaign: Sec. Clinton began supporting the deal after she joined the Obama Administration, where its passage was a priority after key worker protections were included. “Clinton’s campaign is already forcefully pushing back on the idea that the former secretary of state’s support for the trade agreement was anything other than in line with the administration’s position. ‘Her support for the deal came only after she joined the Obama administration, when key worker protections were added to the package,’ spokesman Brian Fallon said. ‘By that point, the agreement was an administration-wide priority, and then-Secretary Clinton’s statements in support of the deal reflected the administration’s position.’” [Politico, 4/22/15]

Clinton campaign: U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, not Sec. Clinton, led the charge to change the Obama Administration’s position on the deal. “The Obama administration said it changed its position only after Colombia made additional commitments about labor rights. And that push was not led by Hillary Clinton, but by then-U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, a campaign aide said. Clinton’s support for the free trade agreement was in line with that of the White House. ‘The idea that the White House sought to pass the Colombia trade deal for the sake of helping out a Clinton Foundation donor is nuts,’ Fallon said.” [Politico, 4/22/15]

·       GAO: “The Action Plan…does not provide detailed guidance on project-level requirements.” “IHRC’s ability to ensure that approved projects are consistent with the government of Haiti’s priorities also has been complicated by a lack of clarity about those priorities. The Action Plan, which is the core document for laying out reconstruction needs and IHRC’s primary criteria for reviewing reconstruction projects, is broad and does not provide detailed guidance on project-level requirements.” [“Haiti Reconstruction,” Government Accountability Office, pg. 42, May 2011]

Schweizer: Clinton Foundation donor Denis O’Brien’s company, Digicel, was the “chief beneficiary” of a U.S. initiative to develop a mobile money program in Haiti. “Fox News Senior National Correspondent John Roberts then reported on Digicel, which, according to Schweizer, was the ‘chief beneficiary’ of an initiative to have a service that allowed money to be transferred via cell phone in Haiti pushed by the Clintons. Schweizer said, ‘shortly after the Clintons began reconstruction in Haiti, and began handing out contracts, sometime during that period of 2010 or 2011 he [Digicel’s owner Denis O’Brien] made a multi-million dollar contribution to the Clinton Foundation.’ And that O’Brien also arranged for three ‘lucrative’ speeches by Bill Clinton.” [Breitbart, 4/24/15]

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “There’s no indication that Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton took direct action” to reward Digicel. “WALLACE: All right. Let’s take another one of your case studies. And that is Haiti after the devastating earthquake there in 2010. Bill Clinton goes to Haiti and becomes co-chair of the Haitian Relief Committee which approved millions of dollars in new projects, part of the relief. In 2010 and ‘11, Digicel, a mobile phone company, gets more than $2 million in U.S. taxpayer money to set up a money transfer program in Haiti. The company’s owner, Irish billionaire Dennis O’Brien, arranges four speeches for Clinton for $825,000 and also contributes between $1 million and $5 million — because that’s the disclosure, there’s no more definite than that — between $1 million and $5 million for the Clinton Foundation. […] There’s no indication that Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton took direct action. I mean, it’s a coincidence or some could say it’s more than that, but you don’t have the direct action.” [Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, 4/26/15]