NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times' Story Based On Clinton Cash "Doesn't Hold Up That Well,"

[Agschmid]

NBC News has conceded that the flimsy anti-Clinton allegations contained in a New York Times report fail to deliver on the hype surrounding them. The Times report was based in part on a chapter from discredited conservative author Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash, and a series of facts surrounding the story's allegations supports NBC's negative conclusion.

The Times story suggested that donations to the Clinton Foundation may have influenced Hillary Clinton's State Department, when they signed off on the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with uranium mining claims in the U.S., to Rosatom, a Russian atomic energy agency. Alleging that individuals who had previously donated to the Clinton Foundation may have benefited from the deal, the Times' reporting has been used as the springboard for commentary hyping the supposed connection, despite the lack of evidence.

But the April 24 First Read column on NBCNews.com admits, "upon reflection, that Times article doesn't hold up that well 24 hours after its publication."

Indeed, a series of facts supports NBC's conclusion and unravels the innuendo in the Times piece:

- Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.

- Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.

- The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.

- The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.

- Rosatom had to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.

- Utah's local nuclear regulator also had to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.

- Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said, "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

Source.

[tblue37]

1. KnR. Fifth rec--to the greatest page. nt

[Agschmid]

2. Thx.

[freshwest]

3. But the bait was working so well. What's next on the GOP hook? n/t

[Wellstone ruled]

4. You think?

Retraction not going to happen. Just piece of the 16 anti Hillary Press Campaign.

[Agschmid]

5. I also expect no retraction...

[joeybee12]

7. Absolutely not...

They mgiht issue some "errors" they made, but will still mainatina there are questions to be answered...the times is a joke.

[George II]

6. Was it NBC's report or the NY Times' report?

NBC didn't "admit" or "concede" anything, they recognized that the Times report was incorrect.

[workinclasszero]

8. No shit?

You mean its all a right wing smear job??? (NO DUH!)

Oh I'm shocked!

BTW NY Times, when is that Bush/Cruz/Walker/Rubio/koch bros expose' coming out????

I'm sure it will be front page news in the NY Times....right???

[lpbk2713]

9. Meanwhile ... back at the Swift Boat.

[underpants]

10. It holds up fine - as long as time travel is possible

And don't you put it past those Clintons to have figured out how to time travel I tells ya.

:doddering old coot:

[msanthrope]

11. I await the OPs from our fellow DUERS retracting their comments.

[turbinetree]

12. Lets ask

why this organization which had commercials running during this broadcast take those millions and after they retract there message on national T.V with the apology and donate that commercial money to eliminate campaign finance abuse from the right wing U.S. Supreme court.

Ands when there is a town hall meeting during the upcoming debates that they turn over the microphone to some real humans instead of shrills for the oligarpghy to ask questions, remember they use our license to operate under since they have no clue and just to report something with no investigation---like Brian Williams just to put out misinformation for greed and ratings

[zappaman]

13. So?

Won't stop anyone here from continually posting it as truth.

[randome]

14. No conclusion can be reached until Vince Foster is questioned by the Benghazi committee.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

16. A small group here wet themselves like Gowdy over Benghazi.

It has really become clear to many of us over the last couple of weeks as to the number of ratfuckers here. Numerous false attacks on Clinton including an opinion piece posted that was written by Andrew Malcolm. They can't control themselves right now. I expect it of the MSM, not from members here.

[cynzke]

17. The Allegations and Innuendos are based on TWISTED Facts and OMISSIONS.

This all started back in 2005 during the Bush administration. Any foreign investments/sales deals had to go through the same rigorous review then before Hillary. In addition, any deals that involve "national security", like the sale of Uranium One to the Russians, needs the additional scrutiny of the NRC and other agencies governing those types of concerns. Further, remember when Bush wanted to give his pals in Dubai a contract to run US Ports? That caused such a stink in Congress, they passed a new law called the "Foreign Investment National Security Act" passed in 2007. Among other things, this act mandates that CFIUS must periodically make reports of its investigations and reviews to Congress. Therefore nothing gets through without their knowledge and approval (as in no objections). In fact prior to the first sale in 2009 (Russians acquired a 17% interest) some members of Congress did question whether it should be allowed and the NRC assured that despite any ownership/interest, the Russians could not export the uranium from the US mines. It is for domestic use, therefore we are the customers. There is no way that Bill Clinton AND Hillary can negotiate and implement foreign sales/investments. The SOS has no power or authority to do that, yet the NYT's and right wingers would have you believe that somehow, Hillary was solely responsible for the sale to the Russians. Back in 2009 after the NYTs first reported this Uranium One narrative, FORBES posted an article refuting the details of its contents. See "Clinton Commits No Foul, etc. here: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/12/giustra-clinton-kazakhstan-pf-ii-in_rl_0912croesus_inl.html

And the "secret meeting" the Clintons held at their home in January of 2007 was not about Uranium One but possible new business deals......"The purpose of the meeting, then Kazatomprom President Moukhtar Dzhakishev told The Times, was to discuss Kazakhstan potentially buying a 10% stake in Westinghouse, a US nuclear company."

No foreign investments/sale can proceed without the knowledge and approval of the President, CFIUS, multiple government agencies involved and Congress. To suggest that Hillary Clinton was responsible for this and undermined national security in the process is TOTALLY FALSE and a deliberate lie!