‘Clinton Cash’ author demolishes Hillary’s self-defense

NY POST ^ | June 22, 2015 | Peter Schweizer

[COUNTrecount]

Grave incompetence or brazen dishonesty?

Those are the only two conclusions one can reasonably come to after reviewing Hillary Clinton’s stunning Sunday interview on local New Hampshire TV.

When WMUR local TV host Josh McElveen asked Clinton why her State Department greenlit the transfer of 20 percent of all US uranium to the Russian government, Clinton claimed she had no involvement in her own State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium One to Russia.

“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” said Clinton.

The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium — the stuff used to build nuclear weapons — to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?

Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmost national security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.

First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.

Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there’s even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.

But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?

[Texas Eagle]

“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” said Clinton.

Ahhhhh. You weren't PERSONALLY involved.

[TexasCajun]

"I Did Not Have Financial Relations With That Man, Mr. Giustra "

[Qiviut]

In the absence of such answers, Americans are left to believe only one of two potentialities regarding her involvement in the transfer of 20 percent of US uranium to Vladimir Putin: She was either dangerously incompetent or remains deeply dishonest.

*********************************

I'll take Door #3: dangerously incompetent AND deeply dishonest.

[canuck_conservative]

Why isn’t “both” a possibility?!

[Servant of the Cross]

"I Did Not Have Financial Relations With That Man, Mr. Giustra "

Outstanding! bump ...

[Timocrat]

PERSONALLY involved.

It depends on the meaning of personally and involved. Do we really need another 4 years (or possibly 8) of parsing the meaning of each statement of the Chief Executive.

[beaversmom]

These people are so disgusting. Even more infuruating are the idiots out there that would vote for her.

[surrey]

What in Heaven’s name WAS she responsible for? Sounds like her job consisted of globe-trotting and picking up checks for the corrupt foundation.
Boy, I hope someone, anyone asks her exactly what she did do.

[Terry L Smith]

Neither Clinton friend and advisor Vince Foster, or the since-retired Clinton-era White House cook can be reached for comment.

[RobinOfKingston]

No matter the picture of that old battle-axe, from the neck up she looks like she just crawled out of a cardboard box bed.

Then I shudder and scroll away, to rest my eyes.

[The Duke]

How could she possibly have been personally involved? After all, she had her daughter’s wedding to plan!

[i_robot73]

Don’t forget all the yoga

[The Duke]

And isn't some sort of whiz bang at making cookies?

And, let's not forget trading cattle futures ...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

let's not forget trading cattle futures . . .

And let’s not forget that she never went back into trading cattle futures again - not even when she and Bill were “dead broke.”