Things You Hear on NPR: ‘No Evidence’ of Clinton Foundation Influence Laundering

October 17, 2016

This is part of why we’re so annoyed about the liberal news media.  (Listen up, those of you who still don’t believe there is such a thing—I know you’re out there.)  This one isn’t just a little biased; this is either gross incompetence (difficult for NPR to plead—they’re not idiots, and they can do very good journalism when they want to) or infuriating, brazen dishonesty in the service of an agenda.

This piece from today’s Morning Edition “compares” the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Foundation (subtle title: “There’s Really No Comparison Between The Trump And Clinton Foundations”).  They dismiss any concerns about the Clinton Foundation as groundless so that they can get on with what they’re really interested in: criticizing Trump.  (In terms of the amount of text under their respective headings, the piece spends three times as much time on the Trump Foundation as the Clinton Foundation.)

I carry no brief for Trump (ask anyone), but NPR’s perfunctory treatment of the Clinton Foundation includes this breathtaking lie:

But there’s no evidence that big donors got any special favors from the State Department.

Want more context?  Fine:

It’s true that the Clinton Foundation accepts money from wealthy donors, both inside the U.S. and out. Emails between the staff at the Clinton Foundation and State Department show that some of those donors wanted access to Hillary Clinton, and that she did take meetings with some of them as secretary of state. But there’s no evidence that big donors got any special favors from the State Department.

Want more context?  Read the whole NPR piece.  You will search in vain for any gloss or explanatory note to reconcile that statement with reality.  The article features a correction, but only one:

Oct. 17, 2016
An earlier version of this story misidentified Pamela Mann’s firm, Carter Ledyard & Milburn, LLP, as Carter Ledyard & Millbun, LLP.

Oh, is that so?

There certainly is evidence that the Clinton Foundation has been used for exactly this kind of quid pro quo.  There’s a whole book about it.  There’s even a documentary.

Don’t believe it until it appears in the liberal news media?  Fine.  The liberal New York Times actually read the book:

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities . . . asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

Want examples?

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

Don’t believe it until the liberal news media do their own fact checking?  Fine.  The liberal New York Times actually did some journalism:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

. . .

The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

. . .

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.

How did the Times learn all this?

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Imagine that.

Be honest, NPR:  Admit there is some evidence.  Still consider these facts disputed?  Fine; cover the controversy.  Just don’t try to tell us these lies.

3 Responses to “Things You Hear on NPR: ‘No Evidence’ of Clinton Foundation Influence Laundering”

  1. […] The Clinton Foundation was a giant influence-laundering operation, selling U. S. foreign policy to Russia among others for cash (with a fig leaf of humanitarian good-works projects for cover), as even the liberal New York Times has investigated and reported. […]

  2. […] don’t always get around to mentioning the facts that aren’t congenial to their side (here’s just one example). As with the lawyers, don’t even think of this as a criticism; they’re just doing […]

  3. […] is similar to NPR’s statement that there was “no evidence” of alleged Clinton Foundation wrongdo… in a 2016 piece about the Trump Foundation:  NPR says, in effect, Of course we all know (or think […]

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: