Friday, April 24, 2015

Clinton Camp Responds to the Times Report

To run the risk of understatement, Thursday did not begin well for the Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign.


A slew of negative stories raised yet more questions over donations to the Clinton Foundation and hefty speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton during his wife's tenure as secretary of state, a steady rumbling that could prove detrimental to her presidential aspirations, and a rumbling resulting from the impending release of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by Peter Schweizer. None of Thursday's stories were more damning than the New York Times' long, independently-sourced report on the sale of a uranium mining company with holdings in the United States to Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency. As the Times put it:
As Russian 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.

First, the Clinton camp responded by focusing on the conservative author of Clinton Cash, dismissing the Times article as a "smear project." Hours later, however, Clinton's new press secretary, Brian Fallon, had composed a point-by-point refutation of many of the claims put forth and posted it to Medium. With All Due Respect host Mark Halperin took note of Fallon's rapid-response effort.
"Most valuable player for the Clinton campaign today is this guy Brian Fallon who put out a document in the middle of the day with some really strong rebuttal points," Halperin said. "It doesn't defuse the thing completely, but if they can reply substantively, they can put this story away to a much greater degree than it was at 6 a.m. this morning."


Among Fallon's rejoinders to the Times was the assertion that Clinton was not involved in the State Department decision to sign off on the sale of uranium mines, and therefore was in no way guilty of a conflict of interest:
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.
In an attempt to further stanch the blood, Fallon argued there was a key flaw in the Times' reporting:
The main Clinton Foundation donor that the Times suggests stood to gain from the sale of Uranium One to the Russians had actually sold his stake in the company three years earlier. 
Again and again, Fallon, who previously worked as a spokesman for the Justice Department and for Senator Chuck Schumer, sought to poke holes in the case that Clinton was guilty of any wrongdoing. He also pointed out that the Times ignored the fact that U.S. regulators accepted a subsequent sale of the remaining stake in Uranium One to Russia after Clinton left the State Department.
The strength of Fallon's presentation lay in his ability to address specific points in the Times story, something he will surely be called on to do again with the release of Clinton Cash in two weeks.

9 comments:

  1. This evening (Friday) at 10 Fox will have an in depth report on the Clinton Cash book.

    The Clinton war machine will be in full defense mode on the left leaning Sunday morning political talk shows.

    This will be a war.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I didn't know anything about the Clinton Foundation but the more I research it, the more I am skeptical of it's legitimacy. Especially, the auditors report showing relatively small cash outflow to grants and other charitable actions relative to income. War or street brawl?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course William doesn't have but a small cache of the facts as usual. Clinton as secretary of state had absolutely no input or being on any of this. It is done by committee one that she wasn't on. Grasp Grasp Grasp

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes Rick… well most of the time… you sound like a party hack… You defend the system because it pushes the causes you want it to push regardless of how it gets the job done in our ‘democracy’.

      Your comments are laughable… influence peddling isn’t necessarily an effort of ‘direct’ involvement… and the possibility that in a long sparsely populated hallway, you are standing in front of the next US President and spouse of the ever charismatic Ex-President couldn’t possibly sway your opinions especially if your main quest in life, like so many highly paid dunderheads in Washington, is the next open cabinet position… or a good word to the keeper of the revolving door.

      Grasp Grasp Grasp...

      Delete
  4. Of course William Hilly never talked to Bill or Chel's during her employment with the US government.

    Now when visiting Colorado, Gill no longer has to deny inhaling either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Gill'... Hummm... so many connotations in this conversation

      Delete
    2. Reported last evening that the FOUNDATION only returned 15% of donations in the form of grants.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, Bill as in Clinton.

      Delete
  5. Their response to it all will be... and their minions will gobble it up:

    Yes, "The Clintons Have Been Disorganized and Greedy," But the Republicans Are Still "the Stupid Party"

    Thy will leave out the 'corrupt' part...

    ReplyDelete