Clinton, Giustra push back against New York Times’ Uranium One story – by Michael Allan McCrae ( – April 23, 2015)

Hillary Clinton and Frank Giustra both released statements claiming that the New York Times failed to prove any connections between the Clinton Foundation and the purchase of Russian assets.

Today the New York Times profiled Uranium One and gifts to the Clinton Foundation. Spokesman for Hillary Clinton, Brian Fallon, called the story wrong.

“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.

The Times’ own public editor has taken issue with the paper’s arrangement with the author of Clinton Cash, saying, “The Times should have been much more clear with readers about the nature of this arrangement” and “I still don’t like the way it looked.” It certainly doesn’t look any better that the lead Times reporter appeared in a taped interview for a Fox News documentary attacking the Clintons on this matter prior to receiving our responses to her questions.”

Frank Giustra, a former investor in Uranium One who sold his shares in 2007, said the story was widely speculative.

“A book that has not yet been published has caused the New York Times to publish a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article about the Clinton Foundation and my role in contributing money to it. There is not one shred of evidence to back up the Times‘ conclusions. 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.”

The facts do not comport with the story in the New York Times. The reporter, Jo Becker, wrote a similar piece in 2008, which was eventually debunked by Forbes.

For the rest of this article, click here: