Donald Trump has recently stated that the Clintons’ ties with Russia need to be investigated. What does this statement mean? Does it have anything to do with Bill Clinton’s lectures in Moscow and the sale of uranium mining company Uranium One to Russia’s Rosatom?
“Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia,” Donald Trump tweeted. Trump also said that Congress should investigate the “Russian speech” and the “money to Bill,” as well as the “Podesta Russia Company.” “Trump-Russia story is a hoax,” he concluded.
Uranium One Inc. is one of the world’s largest uranium mining companies with a portfolio of international assets in Kazakhstan, the US, Australia and Tanzania.
US mass media actively speculated on the purchase of Canadian Uranium One by ARMZ, a Rosatom division (Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency). In the spring of 2008, then-chairman of the board of directors of U1, Ian Telfer, donated three million dollars to the Clinton Global Foundation. Two and a half years later, when US authorities were considering the ARMZ and U1 deal, Hillary Clinton was among the decision makers. As a result, Russia gained control over 20 percent of uranium production in the United States.
The Clinton Foundation pledged not to accept donations from foreign governments at the time when Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State. In June 2010, however, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from Renaissance Capital Bank for his speech in Moscow. The New York Times wrote that the bank was associated with the Kremlin. Furthermore, the same bank evaluated the assets of Uranium One, the newspaper also said. According to the authoritative publication, donations to the Clinton Foundation exceeded $34 million from 2008 to 2013. However, there is no evidence to prove that the money affected the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom.
Pravda.Ru requested an expert opinion from senior officer at the University of Finance, Konstantin Simonov.
“Do you think that the recent storm of Donald Trump’s tweets about Hillary Clinton was just a regular “attack”? Is there a specific ground for such posts? Does Russia appear as a scarecrow here again?”