Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Apr 24, 2015 · 672 comments
Carol B (Braintree)
Brian Fallon is right. No one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” After a 'high tech shred', aka wiping the servers, what evidence, if any existed, would remain?

Time for a voluntary, transparent audit that demonstrates far more accountability - and less focus on 'convenience' - than the disappointing UN press conference.
Joseph Scott (Holt, MI)
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

Of course no one can produce a shred of evidence; it was during this time period where Mrs. Clinton was using a private email system. You remember the one; the one she said contained no information relevant to anyone but herself, the one she wiped clean after the investigation into it, the one she then refused to turn over for forensic investigation, the one she refused to testify before a Congressional insight committe about.

When the NEW YORK TIMES, of all sources, starts to ask questions about her activities, isn't it time to maybe think twice about her??
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
This underscores the fecklessness of canceling the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program in 1994, when it was an inch from completion, at more cost than finishing it. Mr. Clinton said "I know; it's a symbol." It's clear he was pandering to the irrational but extremely effective hysteria of anti-nuclear activists. Current reactors extract less than 0.6% of the energy in mined uranium. IFR would extract over 99%. The substance called "nuclear waste," of which we are desperately eager to be rid, is valuable 5% used fuel, made from enriched uranium. Along with that, we have depleted uranium, altogether about 560,000 tonnes. That could provide all of America's energy needs for 300 years, without any further mining. If we were only to replace existing reactors with IFR we would have enough fuel for 6,200 years. As an additional benefit, fission products from IFR that are dangerously radiotoxic would be 1% as much per gigawatt-year, and would be need special custody for 300 years instead of 300,000 years. A win all the way around. Read "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste" in December 2005 Scientific American, or online. Read "Plentiful Energy" by Charles Till and Yoon Jang.
James (Pittsburgh)
The larger issue of this story is not as many here consider: Her running for the Office of President.
Perhaps with a few mea culpas she will never do this again and she will be the most pure and perfect president we will ever have.
The larger issue is how much of her term as secretary of state was tarnished and how many of her actions and directives while in office were driven by her foundation and personal concerns rather than the national interest.
Mo Gravy (USA)
Perhaps the Obama administration should forget about Iran and instead negotiate a non-proliferation treaty with the Clinton Foundation.
chrisdavis070 (Brussels)
I grant the appearance, as conjured by this article, and time may tell if unethical conflict of interest is indeed the case.

What is equally disturbing is that charities too often look like toys that "contributors" use to get their real business done. Fernwood? How solid is "fernwood"?
EB (Seattle)
Much has already been said about the ethical and political implications of this story. There are two other interesting aspects. The first has to do with an unintended consequence of being married to a former president. Bill Clinton's post-presidency has been immensely profitable for the Clinton family. He and Hillary have become wealthy between their generous book deals, their lucrative speaking fees, and the shady financial transactions. Apparently the Clintons feel entitled to cash in on their prominence after years of public service, and businesspeople are happy to reward them for services rendered while in office. Normally these post-presidential transactions largely go unnoticed and uncommented on. In Hillary's case, however, she faces the apparently unanticipated problem that Bill's questionable post-presidential financial behavior becomes material for her pre-presidential examination of the ethics and legality of her family's financial transactions. This is an interesting twist on the dynastic nature of her candidacy, and one that might well sink her candidacy.
No doubt the Republicans are well aware of Hillary's potential weakness from Bill's financial dealings. And this raises the second interesting point. Why did the Times choose this moment to splash this story, based partly on research by Schweizer at the conservative Hoover Institution, on page 1? Is this early damage control, or an effort to set the stage for a less vulnerable Dem. candidate?
Asterix (Connecticut)
Your most recent revelation makes me conclude that if H. Clinton is the Democratic candidate for the Presidency I will be one of many who will simply not vote in the election. The Democratic Party would be well advised to consider alternatives to Ms. Moneybags.
sweinst254 (nyc)
The reporter notes that at the time the Obama administration was trying to make nice with Putin. The question is whether the Russians' donations to the foundation were "cash for access," whether the Clintons leaned or subtly "suggested" the donations & mentioned the deal, or whether the Russians were so busy throwing money around everywhere & anywhere they thought it might help their interests.

In view of the fact — rather underplayed here, I think — that Clinton as secretary of state was only one of many officials approving the deal, and not among the most important — and considering that the Russians were indeed giving money all over the place, I lean to the third option. If it doesn't exonerate Mrs. Clinton, this shouldn't spell the end of her candidacy, either.
ps (Ohio)
It is good to shed light on these events. However - especially given some of the sources - it is best not to attach unwarranted interpretations to them. The extreme right wing is going to view anything and everything that Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband are or were involved in as scurrilous or at least ominous and try to sell that point of view to the rest of us - let's be wary.
Ed (Washington, Dc)
Why must the democratic party automatically defer to Secretary Clinton as the presumptive choice for the party, now that she has informed us she is running for president? There are so many other choices within the democratic party, many of whom are women, who would be so refreshing and dynamic. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), who took Clinton’s place in the Senate, is a super choice and a leader on a number of issues. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) is a very well qualified leader and has been influential on a number of important committees. Maggie Hassan, governor from NH, is a fine choice; so would be Kate Brown or Gina Raimondo, Governors of Oregon and Rhode Island. These leaders would be excellent choices for the democratic party, and concerns about the funding sources, email choices, various 'gates', etc. that surround Hillary could be balanced against choosing one of these other fine women.
SFNYC (New York City)
The Clintons seem to have an "explanation" for everything. The fact that so much requires explanation leaves me, sadly, to look elsewhere for a Democratic candidate for president.
The phrase: "Lucy, you have some 'splainin' to do" comes to mind.
David (Seattle)
"ince 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."

So, once again, there is no effort to speak to the other members of the committee to get their views on this deal. Did Secretary Clinton bribe all of them as well? I realize it might be difficult to find out who was Secretary of Defense or Energy at the time. So much easier to just retype Schweizer's accusations.
Douglas Campbell (Culver City, CA, USA)
Here we are, in a world of sanctions against the Soviet Union (Russia), doing business with them in exchange for lots of money donated to our "favorite charity". Absolutely disgusting from every vantage.
There are currently no sanctions on the Soviet Union, since the Soviet Union ceased to exist on Dec. 25, 1991, when Gorbachev resigned. Some parts of the former Soviet Union (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are now part of NATO.

Doug, you speak of "the world of sanctions" we are in. But, in 2013, it was a little different world. The world changed in March 2014, when Russia grabbed Crimea, even though Crimea had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954.

Russia has sent us Uranium from dismantled nuclear warheads which we have used as fuel in our nuclear power plants. So I could see where, prior of March 2014, a Russian deal to control American Uranium might be looked upon favorably. That said, it DOES seem a little disturbing.

Of course, the other members of the Committee at that time (i.e. the Energy Secretary) are not being questioned as to why they approved the deal.

However, I would be the first to say that the totality of "baggage" that Hillary has to carry (Benghazi, 30,000 deleted emails that only she or her staff saw) and now the "Russian Uranium Deal", leave me thinking about another candidate.

But when you mention the Soviet Union and disregard how the world changed after Crimea, it tends to lessen your credibility.
The Scold (Oregon)
More breathless reporting and much ado about nothing, get real people, the Koch brothers will spend a billion and anonymous donors more billions of untraceable cash.

While little over a third of registered voters will even bother to vote. Women and minorities will be high on the no show list.

All of this while nothing is done about the perennial difficulties encountered by the poor when they go to vote.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Why are you worked up about the 10th most prolific political spenders? How about Tom Steyer, who spent twelve times as much on political causes during the last election?
T3 (NY)
Credit to the NY Times for initially running this story on the front page of the paper -- it is not an issue easily dismissed as some of the more partisan commentators want to believe. Disheartening, then, that it is nowhere to be found in the headlines of the online edition; disheartening and predictable, as the Clinton Media Machine seems to be well on its way to declaring this to be "old news" after the usual week of silence and failure to address the issue directly.
Cynthia Campbell (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada)
I found it with an online headline.
The facts of the article are evident in this quoted passage: "[The]Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States...comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security." Question: were they all corrupt?
The innuendo of the article is stated as this: "A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”
The actual conclusion of the article is this: "But whether it actually does is another question. And in THIS [emphasis added] case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal."
Reading many of the comments, one would think a different article had been written. But everybody just believes what they want to believe these days, the facts notwithstanding. As the old saying goes: "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts".
michael Currier (ct)
There is something to be said about Bill Clinton and large speaking fees. The times should certainly contextualize the size of this fee in an article that seeks to look at its propriety.
A person of Clinton's stature (or someone with a third of his stature) has budgeted his speaking events per year. Does he do thirty a year? Fifty? A hundred? Are some at very high prices so that others are free? A person with a thousand invitations has some way of controlling who gets a yes and who gets a no. With Bill, do the fees go to The Global Initiative, the Foundation or to him? Does he receive a salary from either the foundation, the initiative or just his presidential pension?
When he travels to Russia or that side of our planet, doe his fees typically double or triple because of travel or security? Was this speech in question linked to work by the foundation, the global initiative or to just keeping his enormous expensive life rolling? Is security and travel included in the speaking fees? If the speech takes four days of travel, is that three less speeches he gives that year and so billing quadruples, or does the number of days he gives to speaking engagements expands that year or remain fixed?
His life is so very different than ours that context like this becomes the Times' responsibility here.
I love the Clintons, believe in their integrity and imagine the context would make this make more sense to all of us.
Thierry Cartier (Ile de la Cite)
I hereby publicly acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the nytimes for publishing this killer drone of an article. I promise to refrain from criticism of nytimes for a day or two in gratitude. By effectively destroying the Clinton juggernaut from within the liberal community the nytimes has freed the nation from the bitterness and bile that a conservative expose would have raised. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now we can concentrate on finding a promising young Demo, if there is one.
Ellen Oxman (New York New York)
"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." Is there any oxygen left in the US or has that been auctioned too? Wow. Who's the banker? Which Wall St. Bank "advised" on the"other" side? Credit Suisse? Which Wall Street law firm "advised" - spin the bottle. That will work. Americans should be Freaking Out At This, no matter which party. We are asleep at the wheel.
Kimbo (NJ)
"...22 of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — also became foundation donors, with Silicon Valley giant Cisco kicking in between $1 million and $5 million in 2009, then winning the award in 2010."

Huh...Nothing to see here, folks...keep moving...just politics.
Makes the over-sized governor around here and his game of bridge seem innocuous.
E (Maryland)
What we also have to remember is what an "Evil" man Vladimir Putin is and that Russia is a nation "NOT" to be trusted.
fran soyer (ny)
But George W Bush vetted his soul for us, and it turned out he was good.
sweinst254 (nyc)
The US deals with many such. It's a question of whether the dictator is our side or not.
"I looked into his eyes and saw his soul" --George W. Bush on Putin, June 2001.
Byron Higgins (Bridgman, MI)
In a world were things and events change so rapidly, it is comforting to know that there are people who do not change. There is nothing that I can add to this conversation that other commentators have not stated. There is something with both of them that is pathologically wrong when it comes to money. Both of them have narcissistic flaws that in my view.
tiddle (nyc, ny)
All of these reporting on the Clinton Foundation probably would not have made first page headlines, has it not been that HC is running for president, again. No doubt there'll be lots of close scrutiny, and mud slinging along the way, which is the same on both side of the aisle, but HC has a lot of baggage over the years.

While it's high time for this country to have a female president, and I've voted for the HC campaign through the years, I have to say, I'm getting HC fatigue. Increasingly Bill Clinton looks more like a liability rather than an asset to HC, although, sadly to say, it's doubtful HC would have gone this far throughout the years, had she not had a former two-term popular president standing by her side, as she has done for him in his years, at all times.

The more evasive the Clintons is, the worse things look. At this point, I want more choices (rather than the take-it-or-leave-it ticket choice of HC on the Dem ballot). Elizabeth Warren might capture the popular rhetoric, but she won't be able to carry the larger red meat states. Who else is there on the Dem bench? If Joe Biden isn't such old hand, he might make do. But the looming prospect of the Clintons in the Dem scene has this suffocating effect on the Dem side that there doesn't seem to be anyone who would rise up through the ranks unless and until HC has had her days in the White House (if she comes to that). Same goes on the GOP side with the third Bush.

I'm just so very tired of all these namesakes.
Lilburne (East Coast)
I do not believe the ratio of commenters accepting as fact the innuendos in this article to the commenters criticizing the bias of The New York Times on display here is accurate.

I have submitted two properly relevant comments criticizing The Times and I know of other people who have submitted comments all of which have been denied space in this comment section.

I think the bias of The New York Times against the Clintons is on full display here with regard to which comments are accepted for display.

The usual rightwing army has arrived to condemn the Clintons, more than a few of them masquerading as "disappointed Democrats" who "always" voted for a Democrat but will not vote for Hillary -- yeah, sure.

Heaven forbid The New York Times would do any research into what policies each of the candidates would favor; that might exhaust the reporters too much. So, The Times buys into the trash put out by a devout Clinton hater, Peter Schweizer, a man whose "work" in the past has been routinely discredited.

When I was a child, I played Giant Steps, a game in which the leader could arrange who would win. When very young, we were too ignorant to realize that little fact; but as we grew up, we "got it" that the game was rigged.

Now I know the political coverage at The New York Times is just as rigged.
jnorton45 (Milwaukee, WI)
Lots of questions. Will you give us any answers or just leave the questions out there? One is journalism. The other is old fashioned much raking.
quantumhunter (NYC)
The "tell" is the fact that 85% of the Clinton foundation's money goes to overhead, and only 15% or less goes to actual charitable donations. That puts it on par with some of the worst charities out there. This is a huge red flag.
Timshel (New York)
Write to Elizabeth Warren! Getting many letters may change her mind, especially now!
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
Nope. she is unidimensional.
Jim Johnson Viet Nam Vet (Everett, WA)
I haven't seen one comment that mentions the email scandal. By destroying the emails she has PROVEN that she is guilty of several things and inferred guilt on many others. 1) All official US govt business MUST be recorded and saved to avoid exactly this kind of scandal. 2) Why destroy the evidence unless it shows guilt?? 3) In court (where this must go if there is any justice at all) when any party destroys evidence the judge will instruct the jury to construe that party had a reason to do that.
This is just another example of the rich and powerful thinking they are above the law. Personally I think she should be held accountable and face criminal charges.
Jeff (Washington)
The Clinton's involvement troubles me less than the fact that a Russian company can own any uranium resources in the United States. This is terribly wrong.
Rick McGahey (New Jersey)
We know the Times hates the Clintons, we saw it when you ramped up the "Whitewater"scandal under Howell Raines. Now the Times has made a deal with a right-wing author funded by Koch Brothers and the people who fund Ted Cruz, and is pushing what he came up with (I know this sounds conspiratorial if readers don't know it, but here's one of many links that describes it Oh, and ten paragraphs in the Times finally tells us "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown" because "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal." The Clintons are no angels, but why oh why does the Times have this vendetta? And why is the New York Times in league with a right wing author who has been discredited many times? See this background on the Times' partner, since the paper apparently won't tell us.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Why are you worked up about the 10th-largest political contributors? How about Tom Steyer, who spent twelve times as much as the Koch brothers?
Carol Smaldino (Ft. Collins, CO)
I have to say I find this worrisome. And somewhat creepy. I too have assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. But if these dealings show that she has somehow been part of a conflict of interests, it seems to be that she would be the wrong choice. And if she engaged in covering up dealings that run contrary to national interests (this is not about freedom of speech which I am very much behind), then how can she be trusted. I refuse to start a process as a voter with the cynicism that says everyone lies, so what's the difference.

In Italy for years, when we would go for summers people would talk of Berlusconi, with a shrug. He was bad admittedly, they'd say, but there was "nobody else". For me this was both wrong and change because in the States, there were always people lining up, often people with credentials.

I agree that Elizabeth Warren should reconsider, but my question would be: does she have the potential to reach Conservatives, and I know: is there anyone at all with the potential to lead and inspire, and suggest that without cooperation we are hurting America. I guess I am still an idealist, but after reading Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything", I'm starting to feel perhaps I am more realist than not. We need someone capable to rise to the task of beginning to convince separate interests that they are nothing without a collaboration that is constructive.
Greg (NYC, ny)
Aiding and abetting the foreign sale of strategic assets with national security implications - is called Treason. Profiting from the arrangement is called Politics. Our house of cards system of governing takes another step backwards.
fran soyer (ny)
Reagan literally dealt arms to Iran, yet somehow, he's the shining beacon of light for the Republican party.
Jodi Brown (Washington State)
Lets see...........a few guns in one hand and 100% of American Strategic Nuclear fuel in the other...............I can't make up my mind which is the worst deal.................
Rick McGahey (New Jersey) the story. Even the Times, with its get-the-Clintons obsession, admits "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal."
James (texas)
Hillary will still win in 2016. The Democratic Party doesn't need an alternate candidate. Hillary has by proxy a huge guaranteed base vote block consisting of people who are receiving Government assistance. Many of those people live totally off the Government with full health insurance and a good amount of cash and more than adequate food stamps. These people are highly motivated to vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. Most of these people don't even know are care who is the Vice President, let alone any issues such as this one in this article. Obama has already done his part for her election by greatly expanding her entitlement base of voters. Simply put, it's almost mathematically impossible for a Republican to win the presidency. In a few years when the untold millions of illegals can fully receive Government assistance it will be totally mathematically impossible for the Repubs to win the White House. So really in the broad scheme of things this is really a non issue as far as the 2016 election results. The Clintons know this.
Luxomni (Bucks County)
Et tu, New York Times?
BoseE (California)
It is time for Wesley Clark to enter the race for president once more. A little to hawkish, but the leader we need at a time like we are living in today.
Eleanor (Augusta, Maine)
OK, Hillary's money is tainted. But, that of all the other potential candidates is squeaky clean? Really? In that case, I have a bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona up for sale.
John W Lusk (Danbury, Ct)
Where was the outrage when Dick Cheney left Halliburton to run for VP? At the time Halliburton gave him stock worth 40 Million! He then won and presided over awarding military projects worth billions to Halliburton! There is no evidence the Clinton's personally enriched themselves from the Foundation.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
And that makes it OK for the Clintons. My mother always said "two wrongs don't make a right."
su (ny)
There was once a Vice president, who notoriously use the following words for this kind of reporting.

"So what" Dick Cheney

Is it legal business, is everything run by what capitalism dictates. what is the problem.

Entire Iraq war we criticized the military industrial complex and oil industry donated millions to Republicans, however on the legal side was everything OK.

In one side as a public we are going to swallow but not reject Citizens united, then we are going to criticize who is donating political establishments and presidential candidates.

There is something off here , Am I right?
T.F.J. Bieber (Twp. of Washington,NJ)
As recently as the early 1980's, there was a federal law that prohibited foreign entities from controlling mining assets in the U. S. When was this law repealed or amended to allow this transaction?
Luisito (Brooklyn)
The story is weak given the point by point, rational, deductive, rebuttal by Brian Fallon, on behalf of the Clinton Camp to this story (see,

1. The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department’s review of the sale to the Russians.

2. 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.
3. A second Clinton Foundation donor referenced in the Times has specifically said he never spoke to her about the deal.
4. The Times fails to accurately describe the process, ignoring the fact that the State Department was just one of nine agencies involved in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One.
5. The Times ignores that U.S. regulators accepted a subsequent sale of the remaining stake in Uranium One to Russia after Clinton left the State Department.

. . . . this story will not gain any traction, end of Story!
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
If Hillary was not involved, there is something seriously dysfunctional in the Obama administration's Foreign Investment Committee.
chris (Sunset, TX)
If this story was about a Republican candidate's family foundation, it would be "above the fold" on Instead, it is essentially buried in the Political tab. I am proud of the NYTimes for running with this story, and very disappointed by the way you seem to be hiding it.
fran soyer (ny)
It's above the fold today.
Robin (Crystal River)
So, the Clinton Foundation is linked to a Russian company, and any way you want to look at it, is clearly responsible for facilitating control of a significant % of Uranium, an American strategic resource, to Russia for Lots of $!
That we are considering electing what looks to be greedy traitors to the presidency, is more scary to me than all the transgressions this corrupt family has perpetrated on our society.
They should be tried for treason, not considered for higher office.
If we elect her, we deserve what we get.
Timshel (New York)
By far, Americans most need good jobs and better pay. With all the crowd-pleasing social liberalism, Hillary Clinton supports Wall Street and the people most profiting from low wages and low taxes on the rich. Such a Republican in Democratic clothing cannot be elected, especially after this scandal, and perhaps more to come. And even though, perhaps, the powerbrokers in the Democratic Party may have warned Elizabeth Warren to stay out of the race, she may accept a draft if enough people plead with her to take the plunge. I think she can lead the Democrats to victories in Congressional elections and begin to end this Republican scourge. I will be writing to her and I hope many other people do the same.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
When she gave a speech at UCLA, howling about "the little guy," she collected $300,000. That's more every minute that a student barirsta makes in a year.
Dave Rossi (Rio Rancho, NM)
How the Clinton's went from dead broke to the top 1%: 85¢ of every $1 to the Clinton Foundation went to salaries, expenses, travel, and the big category: 60% "other expenses," undefined.
Dave, 85 cents of every $1 is 85 percent, right? And 85% and 60% is 145%, if my math is right. I dunno, you do the math.
sherparick (locust grove)
Did the reporters and editors ask Mr. Giustra for his response? He alleges a major inaccuracy in the story, the allegation that former President Clinton flew on his private plane to Kazakhstan he states is untrue, along with much of the other innuendo contained in the story.

The Times and its reporters will have to up their game as the current environment will not allow them to write the sloppy and false stories that generated the entire Whitewater "investigation" which of course ended in the disaster of 1998-99 of the Clinton Impeachment for a private sexual impropriety. Apparently, the Times has white whale hunt going on for the Clintons.
geezer117 (Tennessee)
The evidence of corruption is in those 30,000 emails Hillary destroyed, and on the hard drives of the server she has wiped clean. Not a coincidence Josh Earnest, Carville and Hillary's other defenders keep saying "there is no evidence that ......."
Arthur Taylor (Hyde Park, UT)
This comes as no surprise. The Clintons have been bathed in scandal after scandal after scandal yet their fans are seemingly oblivious to the fact that corruption and sleaze in one's personal life IS one's character and you can expect it to carry over into the job - whatever job that is.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Chuck Colson went to prison for twelve years because he had one FBI file in his White House office. When 600 showed up in an anteroom of Hillary's office, nobody (including NYT) was concerned.
jpr (Columbus, Ohio)
I have looked in vain for an acknowledgment of an open letter contradicting many of the elements of this story, written by Frank Giustra in CEO.CA magazine (, in which he references a similarly smarmy report by Ms Becker in 2009, a report also filled with innuendo and publicly refuted in Forbes. Among other things, Ms Becker seems to reiterate in the current article the false claim that Bill Clinton and Giustra flew to Russia aboard Giustra's plane. Interesting also that Giustra says he sold all his holdings in Uranium 1 in 2007...18 months before HRC became Secretary of State. There are legitimate questions about the Clinton foundation, and certainly about Russia and uranium, but this report which purports to link the two is garbage.
Max (G.)
Just so readers know that this isn't 100% unbiased... "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...." its nice to have access to your sources to un-earth biased material and be transparent even with these articles. The fellow in question reveals a publishing history of biased and inaccurate conservative articles.
Fred (Marshfield, MA)
I don't trust the Clinton's.
Robert Sertero (Somewhere, USA)
Thank you New York Times for reporting this crime. I may soon become a paid subscriber. We need serious in depth honest reporting and there are only a few choices. The Clinton's have always been bold in circumventing the law. Being life time career politicians and smart lawyers they have learned the art of the scam. Woe to America now that they have used their power to allow Russia to take control of America's most valuable assets. They need to be thrown in jail and all property confiscated. If this Russian inside deal by the Clinton's to funnel millions into their own pockets is not a crime then there is little hope left for this nation. The politicians are selling off American assets for their own personal benefit. Unbelievable.
Michael J (Orlando)
Why don't we just read her emails from her time at the state department to confirm there is no evidence of wrongdoing out there?
Kay (Dallas)
It's so interesting.....the NYT does a commendable job of reporting, revealing shady potentially dangerous deals with Russia, a country that walks in and takes over a neighboring country (didn't Hitler do that?), but the comment picks are so skewed to Hillary. None of the comments focus on the monopoly Russia has on our uranium supply and what that means for the future. This woman is a sneaky cheat and people still give her a pass. I don't get it.

Stop any further sale of uranium to the Russians and tell Hillary to step aside while she is investigated for the lawless activities of the last several years. Enough is enough.
Chris (10013)
Under Dodd Frank, I face continual scrutiny on issues of conflicts. Every single stock trade (though our firm does not invest in stocks), every investment, every conflict must be reported to the central government. Compliance tells me that we cannot even Facebook"like" a company that we have an investment in because it might demonstrate bias between two companies that we have an investment in. We face routine SEC audits and the level of conflict management is so high that separate phone systems are required to prevent cross chatter between different parts of the firm. We are required to conduct all business related electronic correspondence on tracked email systems with third party managed retention protocols.

I cannot image how a Presidential candidate does not face a level of transparency and disclosure that is required by a financial services firm. There should be a full and public disclosure of every gift, every donation, and all income that the Clintons have received since leaving office. This may pave the way for Hilary to be elected as we may see an unambiguous record of never getting close to the red line or it may show that there was a routine pattern of conflating personal and philanthropic endeavors that use the tax code and political access for personal gain. I'd like to know the answer
The Clintons, the Congress, the Republicans, the Democrats deep down they are all the same only the spelling is different.

We are a quid pro quo government, bought and sold, so nicely packaged.

This ongoing systemic corruption cannot end well.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Why do people try to corrupt politicians? Because there's something to gain. Why is that? Because the government's influence is so enormous. It needs to be dramatically downsized.
RB (West Palm Beach, FL)
Hilary is now being vilified and this will be plenty of fodder for the Republican Presidential candidates.
We need to take an honest look at the entire political
Process and how endemically currupt it is.
What is particularly disturbing is how the highest court in the land facilite curruption and graft.
Tony (Boston)
Our election system is broken and it need to be immediately fixed by removing money from politics. We need to fix the system, install transparency in all financial deals like this, and take money out of elections by eliminating all political contributions and donations and funding election campaigns with public money. There is no reason for a presidential election to start 19 months before election day. Lets limit all elections to last 4 weeks.
Reuben Ryder (Cornwall)
There is really something cruddy about this, and it makes you wonder about the Keystone Pipeline and who has investments there. It is hard to believe that only Clinton is doing this kind of stuff.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Warren Buffett owns Burlington-Northern Santa Fe. It's no longer a publicly traded company. He ships oil from Canada to refineries in Louisiana. He charges at least ten times more per barrel than would be the cost with the Keystone pipeline. To whom does Buffett make political contributions? You guessed it.
WAH (Vermont)
It is about time for the MSM, including the NYT, to examine these types of deals involving the Clinton's! The full resources of the NYT are applied here, building upon a passage in the "Clinton Cash" book. AND, does this not legitimatize that book? Any attempt by the Clinton's to be negative on it ought to cease.
Grandmaof Four (Maine)
IMHO.... There is NO WAY this "grifter"...AKA Hillary Clinton...should even be allowed to run for President of the United States of America! Period!

She and Bill have become Wildly RICH from this scheme and so has Chelsea, who was sent out to cover for her out of control parents yesterday! SHAMEFUL!!!

And, BTW, WHAT % of all the millions and millions and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Family Foundation actually goes to causes and what % actually goes to Slick Willy, Hillary, and Chelsea plus other associated with this "charity"? Only 5 years of taxes being REDONE??? Come on, I say it SHOULD BE RIGHT FROM THE START!!!

NOW we know WHY 30,000+ emails were destroyed so Hillary's campaign manager could say "Not a SHRED of evidence exists!" You got THAT right, John!
Cindy (Stuart, Fl)
Most of our elected politicians become millionaires..the public doesn't seem the slightest bit curious about how they "earn" the extra cash.
Khantona (USA)
Is there any donation from the Saudies or Qataries?
Kimbo (NJ)
She didn't save those e-mails...
Phil s (Florda)
yes, millions upon millions and to make matters worse she purports to be the champion of women's right while taking money under the table from the saudies, a nation that holds its women to 11th century social standards. she should just take her ill gotten money and ride off into the sunset with her scheming partner; they deserve each other
Jim B. (Chicago, Il)
Reading through these comments is very disappointing to say the least. Where are all the honest, good hearted, straight shooting Americans that once were the majority? Where are the Americans that are outraged by deception at the highest levels of government no matter the letter in front of the name? There is only a handful out of all the comments I have read and that's the problem and reason this even happened. Corruption grows when honest citizens interest falls. There's a record number of partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle and besides being a shameful embarrassment its destroying our country. I pray to God that we get this "my party can do no wrong" garbage under control, and soon.
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
The USA has never been straight shooting good hearted, as a nation, in its policies and foreign government manipulations. The American people are simply catching up.
fran soyer (ny)
The deception in this case is that while this story gets headlines, if the Clinton Foundation was the Clinton SuperPAC, there would be no way to trace the money.

So, what you have on one side, is a charitable organization that is not funding a Presidential campaign, or funding the kind of opposition research that leads to this article; and on the other, purely political organizations whose funding can't be traced.

So, instead of focusing on the more dangerous organization, the secretive, political one; the deceived public focuses on the charity, which may be less transparent than others, but fifty times more transparent than a SuperPAC.

So the secretive, purely political organization, taking money from who knows where, partners with the media to call out the much less secretive charitable organization, and people fall for it.

That's the deception.
alrightalready (Chicago)
Washington DC needs to be "cleaned up and cleared out."

The Obamas, the Clintons, entrenched Liberals, and entrenched RINOS are all acting against the best interests of USA CITIZENS. Worse yet, they KNOW it!

Got that? Emphasis on "USA 'CITIZENS'." It has long passed he pint of TREASON!
It is disheartening to think that all the hope placed on having a Democrat and a woman as our next president is reduced to propping up a very flawed manipulator as a prospective candidate. The incredible and evolving narrative of Hillary Clinton makes me think she has become undone.
Tipper (Florida)
"The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level."

This is just another reason we don't need nor want Hillary as President. She farms out the most important matters to underlings. Since when, as a nation, do we NOT have the Cabinet involved in matters relating to our largest foreign policy nemesis? As the piece notes, " The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Again, we have Hillary farming the job out to an underling. We've had almost 8 years of that. It's time we had someone who was interested in actually doing the job of the United States President.
Stan Ward (Budapest)
It is clear now why, during the 2012 presidential campaign, HC castigated Mitt Romney- labeling him out of touch- for his anti-Russian posture.

It is also clear that Hilary Clinton has too much baggage to be a presidential standard-bearer.
R (TX)
Let the people vote! At least give us a credible alternative Democratic candidate so that the people can use the democratic process to truly anoint her as our candidate instead of letting inertia carry her in without a fight
sweinst254 (nyc)
You speak as though "the people" are passive spectators. If you feel that strongly about it, get behind an alternative candidate and support him/her with your time and money.
angelique (NYC)
How can Mrs.Clinton support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United while hundreds of millions of dollars flow into her family foundation, without audits or accountability? This is very disturbing. I so want to support a woman for President, but wish it was Elizabeth Warren. I truly do not know if I can vote for someone with such complicated associations to big money, who appears to say, the rules aren't for me. Her husband continues to be her biggest liability .
fran soyer (ny)
And you've accounted for every dollar that went into Warren's senate campaigns ?

If you don't think that the right-leaning Hoover Institute couldn't find similarly damaging material on Warren if she ran for President, you are very mistaken.
SmallGovtGuy (California)
Regular people don't have Russian connections with Uranium companies. Red Flag!!!! Nothing else needs to be said.
GG (Philadelphia)
"Regular people" also don't have connections with the Saudi royal family and multinational oil companies...I think that needs to be said.
Lam (Australia)
Such charity funds only make contribution to the fund raisers. Such funds only benefit the raisers and related groups. They use the money to do what they want in guise of charity. They can promote their reputation and status at the same time. Now Hillary Clinton get the help from the fund to accelerate her chance to be first female president of USA. Even if she loose, she at least get more cash donation.
Jesse Marioneaux (Port Neches)
Democrats are really naive and stupid to anointed Clinton as there nominee. The GOP might be stupid but at least they have some choices the Democrats have none except Clinton that is not good. You never put all your eggs in your basket on one person it usually comes back to bite you. It is like putting all your chips on a poker table for one hand that you think it is great. Democrats need to put Bernie Sanders up as their nominee. He represents what the Democrats are about is about the working man and woman. Clinton is a Wall Street shill she has sold her soul to them.
Carolyn-Rodham (New York, NY)
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown..."

marx (brooklyn, NY)
The Clintons have been in politics for a long time, thus they have a lot of political baggage. So does Jeb Bush, I am sure and it is only a matter of time before that is pulled out. Are they 100% ethical people? no. I don't know when we started electing presidents as popes, but lets face it, none of the Kennedy's would have ever approached the nomination if this was the case. Politicians are all in it for themselves and the Clintons are no different. Will Hillary Clinton still make a good leader and role model on some levels? Yes. Will she make a good president? perhaps? Just as much as the next one.
Daniel Mawer (Indiana)
No transparency here & until they got caught. They will or should have to cough up the vital info. It's bad enough we sold this to Russia. How do we know that this will not be forwarded on to Iran. We don't. Russia's take was bad enough considering around 20% is the percentage of the US's stock pile. Talking about selling your soul to the devil.
IfUAskedAManFromMars (Washington DC)
While this might be shaping up to be a Democratic scandal of sorts, it reminds me of the old British joke: All Labour Party scandals are about money; all Conservative ones about s*x; because the other way around, it's no scandal.
LAllen (Dallas, TX)
While the flow of money to the Clinton Foundation is drawing the attention, the bigger question is why was this deal approved at all. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was just one of the Obama cabinet members that had to give approval. What made the other members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States think this was a good idea to basically turn over US uranium reserves to the Russians? What persuaded Eric Holder (DOJ), the head of Homeland Security, the DOD and the rest to approve this?
Obviously, Attorney General Eric Holder, the Secretary of Energy and other members of the Committee were all Russian Spies who hate America.
Charles (N.J.)
At the end of the day no charges will be filed and it will be business as usual. Until we do away with all PACs, SuperPACs, corporate donations, etc., we must admit that we are allowing our country to be run primarily by special interests.

Neither party is serious about slaying the cash cow.
Thinker (Northern California)
"What worries me, and a lot of other Democrats, is that she seems to be anointed this time around with little or no thought to the fact that she could lose this election."

Hillary's "anointed" status today strikes me as no different from her "anointed" status at this point in 2007. The only difference is that there appears to be no Barack Obama this time around.
Kimbo (NJ)
It IS unfortunate that no one else has stepped forward.
Thinker (Northern California)
I've never thought very highly of Hillary Clinton, but I do think she's been unfairly accused many times, including here. The MO of her opponents is to argue that a lot of smoke must add up to fire, but I think a lot of smoke just adds up to a lot of smoke. I'd not vote for Hillary for (many) other reasons, but I do think she's often unfairly castigated. Here, I'd have one and only one question for her: Was that $2.35 million donation referred to in this article required to be disclosed under her disclosure agreement with the Obama administration, and, if so, why wasn't it?
Thinker (Northern California)
"You can tell what kind of America you will live in if you vote for Hillary's opponent and Congress is also controlled by Republicans. Every sinle person in government will have been BOUGHT with billionaire cash."

You could say that about Hillary too. She'll have plenty of billionaires backing her. Rest assured that many of them will contribute through various 501(c) organizations that are not required to identify donors. But there will be plenty of billionaires on those undisclosed lists.
Greek369 (Silicon Valley)
The report makes me wonder why we don't have audits of the Politicians, Public Officials and Public Employees that work for us.

This graphic at tron connects most of the dots in this story.

When are voters going to insist its government doesn't get rich at the expense of Americans?
Queens (<br/>)
All this article says is that a few hundred million dollars came from a uranium company that had a tangential interest in a deal involving Russia? Really? Look at Walker, Rubio, Paul---all bought and paid for by donations from giant corporations and wealthy donors. I guess they are doing out of the kindness of their hearts as opposed to the Clinton foundation donors. Give us a break.
frankly 32 (by the sea)
This is an absolutely stunning revelation documented by the Times. Democrats must grasp its significanse fast less they launch a standard bearer who will sink with all progressives on deck.
Thinker (Northern California)
"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."

As another commenter wrote the most serious concern here (at least to me and him) is whether Hillary breached her disclosure agreement with the Obama administration. If the quoted sentence is correct, it's hard not to conclude that she did. That question deserves a closer look. Beyond that, frankly, this strikes me as a lot of smoke (though I agree with many commenters that there is far more "smoke" surrounding Hillary Clinton than there ought to be).

I hope Hillary will explain why this #2.35 million donation wasn't disclosed.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
If the Fernwood Foundation is so enamored of charitable work, why not just do it instead of funneling money through the Clintons' foundation?
Jay (San Diego)
I believe ex-Presidents who speak for money dishonor the position to which they have been entrusted.
Kenneth Lindsey (Lindsey)
31 million seems like a pretty large donation to a foundation run by the family of a government official that has oversight of the donor's business. Also it is kind of suspicious that $400 million (80%) of the funds received by the foundation, were not uses for charity; but were used for salaries, travel etc. Smells like corruption.
Ron (Chicago, IL)
This may not seem like a good thing for Democratic party right now but better the voters discover the details and ethics of Clinton dealings now and not right before election. Maybe the country does not need another Clinton or Bush presidency.
TS (California)
The prospects for candidates to choose from seem to get scarier with every presidential election. If this piece was written about an anonymous candidate (ie. the name was not attached to the facts) I would say to myself "I will never vote for this person!". However, since I do know this is Hillary, I think now think to myself "I will never vote for any of the mainstream candidates currently running from either party". The choices we are faced with are truly frightening! I would really, really, really like to see John Huntsman get back into the fray! He could be a credible candidate for either party!
fran soyer (ny)
Your support for Huntsman is a problem for 2 reasons:

- The implication is that since he is already wealthy, he is incorruptible. This was the Bloomberg mantra that apparently worked on some people. The problem there is that you have now created a country where only billionaires can run for office. It's bad enough that they sit behind the scenes, pulling the levers, you want them in front also.

- Huntsman, unlike Bloomberg, inherited his wealth. He didn't even earn the right to be in your tiny field of potential candidates, he was born into it. Same would hold true for Donald Trump who was born on third base and writes books about hitting triples.

Basically, your conclusion is that we need to get back to monarchies, because Louis XIV didn't need to take money from the Russians.
Nancy Miller (Somerset, NJ)
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."
Ana Espinosa (Napanoch, NY)
Perhaps this is the perfect moment to consider our choice in the next presidential election.
Do we want the Koch brothers picking our next president, or do we vote for someone who might do some good for the working class, or should I say working poor? I am not a fan of the Clintons, never have been, but better a good devil than a real one.
Is there a clean politician anywhere?
Run Elizabeth, run....
Saints Fan (Houston, TX)
Elizabeth, the ultra progressive, would be crushed.
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Why do you have your knickers in a twist about the 10th-largest political spenders? How about Tom Steyer, who spends twelve times as much?
Van Snyder (La Crescenta, CA)
Why do you have your knickers in a twist about the 10th-largest political spenders? How about the nine who spend more (on Democrats)? How about Tom Steyer, who spends twelve times more than the Koch brothers?
nobrainer (New Jersey)
The colloquial shell game. It makes for interesting reading. You really are not supposed to fallow the pea. in this case money, or the candidate your offered up in a democracy. after many legal maneuvers.
PMcD (Chicago)
Let's all take a deep breath. The US produces only 3% of the world's uranium. Kazakhstan produces the largest amount 38%. Canada produces 16%. Russia owns only 20% of the US production of 3%.

The US has been for sale for a long time. How many assets in NYC are owned by the Russians? How much is owned by the Chinese?

Let's give Mrs. Clinton a chance to respond before we all jump to conclusions.
fran soyer (ny)
1600 plus comments about the funding of the Clinton Foundation, and nobody is wondering who exactly is funding the "right-leaning Hoover Institution".
Jack (Long Island)
Is anyone from the Hoover Institute running for president? Please specify what potential conflict of interest exists with the Hoover Institute and our foreign policy? This article specifies in detail a conflict of interest and a potential, but unproven, quid pro quo. I doubt the Clintons broke any law but they can not help walking that fine line. I am amazed how unconcerned they are with public perception of their actions.
GMooG (LA)
Good point. Remind me which member of the Hoover family is running for President now?
morGan (NYC)
The majority of us Lib/Dems are NOT following you lame, Clinton paid reasoning. We need a CLEAN Dem to represent us. Not scandals shackled woman.
Washington Heights (NYC, NY)
The ethical problems of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are once once obvious and clear. It is unethical to at once have one spouse as Secretary of State and the other leading a global foundation soliciting donations from foreign governments, NGO, and individuals. Once Mrs. Clinton was nominated for Secretary of State, the only ethical course for them was for Mr. Clinton to step down from the Clinton Foundation. That they did not grasp this, indicates how deeply indifferent they are to the ethical standards of professional conduct.
billcarson (Santa Fe, NM)
Why does this country have such an interest in the Clintons? Have we not suffered more than enough? All they care about is power which leads to more money for them and nothing for us.
fritzrxx (Portland Or)
With the Clintons, questionable deals never stop.

Not enough US voters will ever believe it until the Magic Couple is back in the White House.

Better to live thru that than to allow one of the other side's assorted fumblers to wreck everything.
Karmax (lake worth, fl)
The thing is, this news would be too complicated for anybody running against Hillary to soundbite; heck, I'm having trouble keeping all the players' names and geography straight. But what I sense from this in-depth report is that HC, knowing she was SOS who would undoubtedly run for president, turned a blind eye to the conflicts of interest regular citizens can spot a mile away just because if ever questioned, she would claim one conspiracy or another and refuse to respond.

I don't know if it is hubris or the rules don't apply to her, but any way you shake it, these backroom global high stakes games are smarmy and should disqualify one from being in charge of the country. It is very discouraging that those who claim to fight for middle class values are involved in these intricate deals that have nothing to do with single moms struggling to support families but everything to do with lining their own pockets. We were worried HC wouldn't stand up to the banks that have supported her; that's small potatoes compared with uranium claims and speaking fees and Putin amassing natural resources and it is just too much drama for this progressive.
lpngleo (new york)
Democrats, like lemmings, will support Hillary Clinton despite an absence of accomplishment; her record just does not matter to them.
After more than six years, income for working Americans is down about $1,700 per capita from when Mr. Obama took office. Obviously, the president's vision for working Americans has not worked all that well. What will Hillary Clinton do differently?
Hillary Clinton's record shows she succeeded in getting more money for vets and did some good things in education. However, Hillary Clinton did not introduce any important legislation.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama engineered few foreign policy successes.
Mrs. Clinton led the movement to remove Qaddafi in Libya and then back-pedaled about the assassination of American ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.
There was poor security in Libya and that Secretary Clinton did little about that.
fran soyer (ny)
Have you demanded the resignation of the police chief every time there's a murder ? When that guy shot up Fort Hood, which army commander's head did you demand ? Or was it the Secretary of Defense's fault ? Then why do you single out Hillary for what happened in Benghazi ?

I've never once seen someone ask "Why hasn't Robert Gates answered for what happened at Fort Hood? Where's the accountability ?" Why ? Because it would be ridiculous. And so is the Benghazi witch hunt.

And poor use of the Carly Fiorina "accomplishment" talking point. At least Fiorina sticks to her little song and dance, you couldn't even finish your thought before admitting that she actually did accomplish things.

Quoting you:

"Hillary Clinton's record shows she succeeded in getting more money for vets and did some good things in education."
stu freeman (brooklyn NY)
Why oh why can't Hillary's deeds match up with Hillary's words? She says all the right things (or most of them, anyway) but when push comes to shove she ends up behaving like virtually every other money-and-power-hungry politician in America. Which is not enough to compel me to vote Republican (which of their leaders isn't above selling his soul to the highest bidder?) but it could very well be enough to move other progressives to throw their hands up in the air and to keep them away from the ballot box come next November.
Lance Haley (Kansas City)
I laugh at these concerns over the money coming to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's campaign. Has anyone been paying attention this past thirty-five years?

The country was put up for sale decades ago. The Clintons are just one couple that compromises a very large group of wealthy and powerful people around the globe who treat nation-states - in essence their governments and their citizens - as pawns in a ubiquitous and nefarious interlocking financial scheme.

These are not the rantings of some conspiracy theorist. These are simple, transparent ongoing observations made over the past thirty-plus years made much more clear by articles like this one. As the regulatory and legal barriers to financial and political control have fallen by the way side around the world, it should be patently obvious to even the most casual observer that the very things that both Adam Smith - the Father of Capitalism, as well as the Founding Fathers of the U.S., warned about are coming to fruition.

When people are allowed to use both money and influence to "game the system", they then feel liberated to act with impunity in further consolidating their grip on power. Bill Clinton assented to tearing down Glass-Stegal. He now has become one of the single largest political benefactors of the global investment banking scheme. Surprised?

Republican or Democrat? Liberal or Conservative? Don't kid yourselves people. They all wear the same hat when it comes down to money.
S B Lewis (Lewis Family Farm, Essex, New York)
It is undeniable: Hillary and Bill Clinton have used government to make themselves wealthy, and they have sought foreigners to enhance themselves.

Government service for profit is self service. Once upon a time, John Adams served. He did not make a dime. Abraham Lincoln, the same, and his service cost him his life.

Times have changed. Is this what we want?
Rusty Day (Portola Valley)
Perhaps this helps to explain why Mrs. Clinton chose to maintain a separate, private server for her electronic communications as Secretary of State, and then unilaterally delete everything she alone deemed private.

The audacity of the Clintons never ceases to amaze, particularly for those of us who remember another national leader who blatantly destroyed the records of his conversations: Richard Nixon. Has the electorate learned nothing from our past mistakes?

Whether or not the Clintons bargained away the nation's uranium reserves for private, personal gain, the mere appearance of impropriety, together with the contrivances they create to preclude public scrutiny of their exercise of public power, should alone suffice to disqualify them from further consideration for public office. When the Secretary of State's spouse is allowed to solicit and accept donations from entities promoting foreign interests affecting our national strategic interests, we have stooped to a new low in political corruption.

Our Nation's leaders should lead us out of the ever-growing corruption that engulfs us, not teach us how to get away with it.
Roberto (az)
At least Nixon had legitimate and applicable experience when he became president; and should be credited with significant accomplishment. Collecting stamps on a diplomatic passport (while Obama ran foreign policy out of the WH) does not constitute relevant experience.Here, HC is more like Palin seeing Russia from her house. No more 'Resets" - clumsily mis-spelled) no more Clintons.
Patricia (usa)
Matthew Staver's photo of John Christensen is very poignant. Here's this guy in working class garb sitting alone outside while all these big 1% wheeler dealers fly around the world making underhanded deals that involve his land. This picture appears to me to be a metaphor of a duped society
bobo (washington dc)
You really have to ask yourself after awhile, how all these problems just keep following the Clintons around. All this maneuvering and wheeling and dealing all for a lousy $2.3 million bucks? Give me a break. Every time I read a story like this, it makes me wonder why the Clintons just keep stepping in it, when they could easily go around it. They're either not too smart, or they feel they're above the law. It doesn't make me want to write a check to Hillary's campaign or Bill's Foundation, or vote for Hillary. It makes me wish I had other choices besides not voting at all.
ejzim (21620)
I also want to see who is giving how much to all those Republican candidates, not just Hilary Clinton.
Arms Merchant (Honolulu, HI)
The difference is that Clinton had to directly sign off on the deal as Secretary of State. Individual Senators and I even Governors do not typically have that level of influence on such a crucial issue of national import: the raw fuel for nuclear weapons being bought up by a nuclear-armed power whose policies often oppose the U.S.'

"They do it, too" is hardly a defense.
Crispin (Norwalk)
Any candidate GOP or otherwise should be ineligible if receiving $$$$ from foreign governments or foreign government-connected elites. Period.
Gilbert Zimmerman (Morristown, NJ)
Let me try to explain something that should shed a little light on all this. It has to do with Private Foundations. They are time-tested vehicles designed to transfer wealth to succeeding generations in the form of a (income) tax exempt organization that can provide those succeeding generations with a mechanism to control family philanthropy while, at the same time, creating, what is, effectively, a Private Office that can pay family members significant salaries and opportunities to write off travel and entertainment expenses. The Clintons have used their influence to create what is now reported to be a $2 Billion fund that is not subject to income or estate taxes and can go on in perpetuity. I am an estate and gift tax lawyer with 40 years experience. This is nothing new. The method of funding, however, appears to be a little unusual. The Clintons are getting good wealth creation advice.
nothere (ny)
It is truly a pity that Democrats do not have a candidate whose ethics are challenged by a new revelation every day. However, none of the accusations and admittedly borderline practices that the Clintons should have known better than to engage in considering Hillary's likely future candidacy, can compare with the billions in dark, unidentified, unlimited Republican donor funds that Democrats can never hope to equal. Nor should they. It would be great if Democrats really could refuse that kind of money and really get out the small donors, like Obama did in '08. It can be done. Someone take a stand!
Gonewest (Hamamatsu, Japan)
"It is truly a pity that Democrats do not have a candidate whose ethics are challenged by a new revelation every day."

Assuming you actually meant to say "not challenged"
then actually the Democrats do, or could...

In two words: Jim Webb.
Democrats will lose if Hillary is the nominee. There are far more qualified people to run that have less obvious troublesome issues following them every step they make. Let's get a real progressive before there is nothing left to fight for.
Sixchair (Orlando, FL)
I recall reading in disgust in the early 2000's about Bill's international dealings. Especially his relationship with Giustra, who did not have a nickel until Clinton greased the skids for him in Kazakhstan. Once that acquisition was complete, Giustra first became wealthy on stock IPO's. We now know how things unfolded from there. Everyone gets all misty about CGI.

When Hillary declared for 2016 I wondered how long it would take for these shady deals to surface. I'm frankly delighted they did sooner rather than later. Maybe it will embolden other Democrats to jump in and challenge her. We need that.
No oversight on the part of the Obama Administration (Hillary struck a "deal" with Obama?). Questionable judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton. Seriously questionable actions on the part of the Clinton Foundation.

Now the Obama Administration spokesman is directing questions to the State Department and Hillary Clinton.

What a mess.
cjroses (san francisco)
I'm not sure what is more remarkable - that we might see this inherently sleazy couple in the White House again or that this is the only candidate the Democrats are fielding.
Larry (Illinois)
Hillary is the best the Democrats have to offer. If not her, they wouldn't even field a candidate
Clausewitz (St. Louis)
... I guess Hilary will be able to charge more when she is President, on top of the extra bonus for being an ex-President's wife. Does Obama know? While we are busy chasing terrorists, it is our friends who shall do us tne most harm.
Bob (Parkman)
The Clinton's have a ethics problem. They never learn. HIllary is unfit for office.
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
Our founding fathers created this nation with the strong belief of justice, fairness and ethical means of governance. They must be all squirming in their graves to see whats happening to their nation (post slavery).
Sdcinns (NS)
This is huge. And who knows what incriminating evidence was on the erased secret email server.
Philip (Pompano Beach, FL)
The Koch Bros. alone give the Republican Party almost one BILLION dollars to buy this presidential election, and other billionaires joined in with more BILLIONS to install their paid for Republicans in power. What this money will be used for is one attack ad after another about Hillary "scandals." But not a single one of these ads will talk about YOUR issues.

This could easily be one of the most important elections in the history of America, and what is at stake is not a contribution to the Clinton Foundation or a speaker fee. Rather, what is at stake is whether we want to keep the America we have cherished all our lives, where when you are sick, old, or disabled, you are not alone but rather have a government that will allow you to live in dignity. That's what Hillary wants, and that's what you will get if you vote for Hillary.

You can tell what kind of America you will live in if you vote f or Hillary's opponent and Congress is also controlled by Republicans. Every sinle person in government will have been BOUGHT with billionaire cash, and the Republicans will pay them back. Just look at the Republican House proposed budget: a 20% decrease in benefits to the severely disabled; reductions in social security benefits for everyone; discussion of cuts in Medicare; repeal of the protections agains insurer abuse in Obamacare; the largest war budget in American history, when not a single group is attacking our borders; all to support a TAX CUT TO BILLIONAIRES.
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
Hillary belongs in a secure facility, the nation deserves to know where she is at all times.
Robbie (Las Vegas)
So just a few days ago Hillary was calling for the end to "dark money" in politics. To her credit, she didn't mention brightly glowing money.
George (Chicago)
What does the Clinton Foundation do with it's money? Salaries paid to employees, administrative overhead?
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
It all starts with a quiet hypothetically structured conversation in the corner of a room at an international economic development forum, all about what could happen after her election. Sound familiar?
FJM (New York City)
The New York Times does not offer one shred of evidence in support of any actual impropriety by the Clintons.

As far as we know, a great deal of money was donated by Canadian businessmen to the Clinton Foundation for the purpose of improving global welfare.

This is in contrast to the millions donated by the Koch brothers, Adelstein and others to the Republican Party for the purpose of advancing conservative social legislation, thwarting clean energy advancements and electing legislators who will take their conservative marching orders.

Furthermore, donations from foreign governments are indirectly funneled through US lobbyists to political campaigns for the purpose of buying access and influence.

Astoundingly, there are even conservative lobbyists who write actual legislation which elected officials present (and pass into law) in Congress as their own (ALEC).

Thank you, Citizens United.
Michael (Boston)
This is very troubling to me. There needs to be a fuller accounting and this loophole should be closed completely. No government employee that holds a position of power and decision making on public issues such as these should be able to receive funds for themselves or immediate family members; for a foundation, campaign, non-profit, nothing. It's just plain wrong.

$35 million in donations from Uranium One to the Clinton Foundation and $500,000 for one speaking engagement to Mr. Clinton in Moscow was certainly given to buy influence. The question is did this company receive any influence? The Committee on Foreign Investment includes 7 cabinet members: "the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state." It is impossible to believe they bribed all of these cabinet members but maybe Secy. Clinton's persuasion was all that was needed. It is impossible for her not to be sympathetic for this transaction after the Foundation received millions of dollars in donations.

The piece states that many different foreign corporations have owned these US uranium mining rights over the years - "French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian" companies. So, these particular mining rights have not been US owned for some time. But if money was given to influence a vote by Mrs. Clinton (and it certainly seems so) this troubles me deeply.
Bob Stassen (Arkansas)
I've heard this discussion of a "quid pro quo," necessary to show bribery, but it's inaction that just as bad. We look to the State Department to intercede in issues like the Keystone Pipeline, but now, how gone quite with regard to uranium mining?
Jeff (Ohio)
After reading the comments here I fear for the safety of the country. Do you realize what this means? Russia bought our government. And the person that they bought wants to be the President. And that does not seem to alarm anyone at all! You got to be kidding me. Putin is looking to corner the main ingredient in making nuclear bombs. And here we discuss if the person that has helped facilitate this should be elected President. Ever heard of the word Treason?. Come on people I know you tend to look the other way when any Democrat is caught doing anything wrong, but this is really going to far.
Margo (Atlanta)
This alarms me. I'm pretty sure we're not alone on this.
Bill (new york)
The issue isn't proliferation. They have enough raw materials already to blow up the entire planet. The issue is that this is used also for energy in reactors. By the way we also have enough material to blow up the entire planet.

Clinton ethics are fair game however.
ejzim (21620)
Actually, China owns much more of the US than Russia, whose economy isn't as large as that of California. Let's see ALL the dark money, in politics, exposed. I do have to wonder why our government thinks it's okay for Russia to oversee all this uranium, including the stuff from Iran. Suspicious.
Alexander Harrison (414 East 78TH 10075)
I would be so obliged it if the editors would review their decision not to publish my comment which I posted this morning on the Clintons, which I believe is educative and which I believe your readers would appreciate reading.
Fran Melville (New York, NY)
So much for freedom of speech.
Pat (Mystic CT)
We keep talking of Russian kleptocrats and the endless circle around Putin who support him and in turn get the inside track on lucrative deals. The Clinton Foundation is certainly not in that class, but it would be difficult for anyone to say that this is any way for someone who has sought the presidency for years should behave. Hillary may talk of a "vast right wing conspiracy." She may say that she is being targeted because she is a woman. And she may have a point. However, she is also a one person arsonist who is fanning the flames that will consume her chances for the Presidency and seriously injure the Democratic Party for many years to come

There was a time when the Democratic Party stood for some values. Now, unfortunately, leaders like Hillary hold their nose and pass the hat around
hopeforchange (usa)
Mrs. Clinton is not fit for POTUS. It's not okay that she created her own private email server to conduct government business in order to avoid any accountability. These latest revelations are equally troubling. Better this information comes out now so the Democrats can find a new nominee.
Larry (Illinois)
We now see why she went through the expense and trouble of her own private server to hide email sfrom The a People
Scotty Cherryholmes (Huntsville, TX)
On the surface this looks like a plot from a Tom Clancy book. But in actuality it is just bad math… 1 + 1 does not equal 3. — The PR problem with anyone in politics is that they deal with very complex issues. Stuff that can't ever be fully understood by any layman much less the Fred and Ethels of our Nation’s citizenry.

Any politician who has the experience and the credentials to become an American president, will have many decades of government engagements. These politicians have had ins and outs with hundreds, maybe thousands, of dealings with all kinds of domestic and foreign leaders.

For a person like Hilary Clinton, who is probably the most qualified and prepared presidential candidate we have had in the past hundred years, it is easy for her opponents to give the appearance that she has corrupt baggage.

The claims come and they go. Publicity storms are created. Time passes. And nothing ever comes of it. Mostly just muckraking. — Okay, Bill Clinton lied about an affair. Most Americans really don't care.

The rest of this mess amounts to zip. Basically it boils down to this, those who didn't like the Clintons back then don't like them now. The Clintons are New Democrats. So the ultra liberal “progresses” don’t like them. The conservatives plain out fear them and will try any underhanded effort to stop them. Big whup!

Regarding "Hilary Clinton 2016"... "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."
Margo (Atlanta)
Fred and Ethel? Don't insult us. This is not the way our government should be run.
Bill Horak (Quogue, New York)
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown"
The rest of the article reports on activities all too typical of the public perception of the Clintons' activities as being just this side of the ethical line.
As for any national security concerns about a Rosatom subsidiary owning a uranium mine in the US, I think they are groundless. The uranium isn't going anywhere soon and the bigger concern is where the US plants will get enrichment services in the future at reasonable cost.
Kim (Claremont, Ca.)
The problem here is the 1% are running the show (greed & power rule) the 99% need to make their concerns heard & vote with their pocketbooks! Honestly what is in it for most people, absolutely nothing!! They have managed to ruin education, healthcare the environment, jobs!!
Alex (Indiana)
"Uranium is considered a strategic asset".

That's rather an understatement.

The possibility that Ms. Clinton may have aided Mr. Putin in obtaining control of a substantial fraction of the world's uranium supply is truly frightening. Especially if, through action or deliberate inaction, she did so on her watch as Secretary of State, and especially if she was motivated by donations to her family foundation.

The truth is likely out there, and it very much needs to fully come to light before the Democrats select their nominee for the Presidency.
anonymous (Wisconsin)
If she is going to run for president, she could at least bw smart enough top realize you can't hide nothing from no one never.
Sophie L (Connecticut)
Why do you and the others believe this hogwash? I mean, seriously?!
Alan Guggenheim (Sisters, OR)
Either President Obama investigates this influence-peddling criminality or he, too, is complicit -- the latter alternative signaling a conspiratorial sellout of America that gives opportunism a bad name.
Let's hope and pray our President cries "Enough!" and appoints an independent counsel to investigate the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation. Really, enough is enough.
Pam (NY)
I just realized that I can't cast my vote for a party that can only offer up one anointed candidate, who is not an incumbent president: no inter-party debate, no critical thinking, no respect for the real needs of the people, and the values of the party base.

The Real Politick people are always poopooing pesky little notions like ethics, or honesty, or following through on campaign promises. And scaring us with the Republican alternative. And the Supreme Court.

Put forth another candidate. One who actually represents the true concerns of the American people. Then let's see. If Americans really want the regressive policies of the Republicans, so be it. Somehow, despite all the polls and the pundits, I think not.

But if I wanted a candidate whose behavior was no better than a Koch's, well, I'd vote for Vladimir Putin.
Brian Williams (Williamsburg)
You do realize it's up to the candidates whether they run or not, right? You have other people who will be running.
Nehemiah Jensen (United States Of America)
In March 2011, Barrasso got a letter from then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who told the senator ARMZ would have to seek a license from the NRC to export uranium.

“Before issuing such a license, the NRC would have to determine that the proposed export would not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States,” Jaczko wrote.

More than a year after the correspondence, Barrasso said he was satisfied with the response.

“We continue to carefully monitor the situation, the trust-but-verify sort of thing,” he said
HapinOregon (Southwest corner of Oregon)

Assuming the assertions in this article are true, how is this more odious and dangerous than the multinational corporate control of SCOTUS, POTUS and both houses of Congress as well as most statehouses?

Neither the Clintons (NAFTA), nor President Obama (TPP), are truly Democrats. They are more akin to Rockefeller Republicans...
Brian (Monterey, CA)
Interesting story, the problem I see is that the deal approval hasn't been shown to be in spite of what others in the Obama Administration wanted. Keep in mind several things here, stated in the article:

1) Both Russia and the US need outside sources of uranium to sustain themselves, thus the Kazakh mines are the real 'prize' not US production (although it's a legitimate strategic concern). The cables mentioned in the article indicate the State dept had this in mind well before this.

2) The decision to approve the deal doesn't seem to be particularly unusual in that we were engaging with Russia at the time for Iran sanctions and the like. We have also used 'diluted' Russian uranium from weapons to fuel our reactors from reduction treaties, so the idea of getting uranium from Russia isn't exactly 'shocking.' Post-Crimea, of course, it seems less wise.

It seems to me the article shows there *could* be some kind of link and that, obviously, these people probably hoped the donations would influence the Clintons, even if it wasn't expressly given for that purpose. It just seems to me that you kind of have to fill the gap between these two with whatever your personal narrative of US politics is.

As others have stated, I am far more concerned with billion dollar super-PACs subverting democracy than million dollar charities. I would estimate that people donating to Clinton PACs will have orders of magnitude more influence than those that donated to the foundation.
Jim Bo (Westfield, NJ)
Well It's pretty understandable how the Clinton's were able to exceed the Romney Net Worth so quickly, Willie Sutton would've been a politician now a days.
William Gill, Esq. (Montgomery, Alabama)
I'm sick of the Clintons and the Bushes. Enough is enough. America deserves better and can do better. And I am especially turned off by Mrs. Clinton's life long megalomaniacal lust for the presidency and the fact that she has led her entire adult life as someone who will do anything and say anything to acquire that office.
Paul (Eugene OR)
There's no dirty money here. Just radioactive money. So now there are no good Democrats nor good Republicans running for president next year?

Now what?
Dave (Texas)
There are plenty of good Republicans running.
Ted wight (Seattle)
Didn't Democrats once scream about the "appearance of corruption" with most everything George W. Bush? If all this smoke by the Cheater, Chelsea and Charming Clinton Foundation isn't an absolute appearance of some fire beneath, then I have a bridge to sell, and liberals are buying. I mean really, shady scenario after shade scenario, the latest being ownership by Russia of American uranium approved by the then-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton AFTER a Million dollar plus "donation" to the foundation by some Russian with an ownership interest in the Russian buyer of the U. S. uranium company. The next president wanna be has a deal with a Russian with close ties to Mr. Reset Dictator???

Touchet (Atlanta, GA)
Who were the other people from multiple agencies that sign off on the deal? Also, is the first and only time those people donated to the Clinton foundation?
Michael Knapik (Washington, D.C.)
One point I would like to make about this story: the control of Uranium One's U.S. uranium assets by Russian entities does not pose any real strategic threat to America's interests. Uranium One's U.S. property, named Willow Creek, produced 562,400 pounds of uranium concentrates (U3O8) in 2014. Total U.S. production in 2014 was 5 million pounds, and world production was 145 million pounds, according to uranium industry experts at the Ux Consulting Co. More interesting is the reliance by U.S. nuclear utilities on supplies of uranium and enrichment services (enrichment being a necessary part of the nuclear fuel cycle) from Russia and Kazakhstan. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency, in 2013 (the latest year of available data), 45 percent of the uranium concentrates that U.S. utilities were having enriched was of Russian or Kazakh origin. A good portion of that uranium was the result of the highly successful nuclear non-proliferation project (nurtured during President Bill Clinton's term in office) that resulted in the blending down-- fro use in commercial nuclear plants -- of 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from Russian nuclear warheads. That down blending project was completed in 2013.
Christopher Webb (Louisville, KY)
Why are no other Democrats challenging Hillary for the nomination? When was the last time either party had one unchallenged nominee who wasn't a sitting president running for re-election? Has it ever happened? It's not like Hillary is even a strong, can't-miss winner. She's very beatable. So why won't any other Democrat step up? This seems strange to me.
Touchet (Atlanta, GA)
Because they are just taking their times. Don't forget, its a real possibility that the DNC does what it did in 2008. They will stage an accidental protest among their ranks, and hold election out of order. Then they can just go back and disenfranchise millions of voters to give the nomination to whom they want. How quickly people forget the past.
buck (indianapolis)
There is just too much dirt on Clinton Inc. And the repubs. are even worse.

The only current sign of honest potential candidates now: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Or the ticket could be Warren/Sanders. It appears to be the only hope for our country.
Me Again (Elsewhere)
THAT ticket will not happen. So don't vote, and we get a Republican to destroy our nation fully and completely.
GMooG (LA)
Warren/Sanders. Why, that would be the most progressive ticket since Debs/Seidel. And just as successful.
Or Warren/ Gov. Jerry Brown. California has more Electoral Votes than does Vermont. (Sorry, Bernie!)
DMF (Lexington)
This is not just how a President Bush III or a President Rubio becomes a reality; this is how a President Cruz becomes a distinct possibility. Can anyone truly fathom the damage done to this country in the latter instance, with a Republican Congress? All social advances and whatever foreign policy prudence that has accrued over the past decade evaporates immediately.

The Democratic party simply must do its best to engender an open competition for this nomination. It is perfectly fine if Hillary Clinton survives that competition. If it doesn't take place, and she is unchallenged, garbage from her past - and her husbands - will destroy her in the home stretch.
microsenthal (Washington, DC)
The reporting seems to have omitted crucial facts. According to the Energy Information Agency, Uranium One has a production capacity of about 15% of the U.S. total. Since the U.S. produces about 11% of what its total needs are, Uranium One could control less than 2% of total needs. Doesn't seem to be a significant national security concern to me, especially since U.S. allies, Australia and Canada are major producers, about 30% or the world's output.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
Uranium One could control less than 2% of total needs. Doesn't seem to be a significant national security concern to me, especially since U.S. allies, Australia and Canada are major producers, about 30% or the world's output.


So that makes it okay to take the bribe then. Perfectly clear
GMooG (LA)
I suspect that if you replaced "Clinton" with "Bush" in this story, then this would be a significant national security concern to you.
Roberto (az)
The comment misses the issue: whether Russia, a sometimes belligerent, gave money to the Clintons in exchange for a valuable asset- the sec/state approval of this transaction..
There is no amount of the inevitable spin (dissembling) by HC's patrons and future beneficiaries that can explain this - other than an almost textbook (DSM V) case of compulsive behavior.
The post WH then "broke" Clintos have amassed over 100 millions since leaving the WH yet even with the loss of the nomination coming into view, simply cannot turn "one last six figure speech" to a group that wants ROI or a few million bucks more from some foreign government. They simply are compelled and cannot control themselves. We all remember how Bill's inability to control his appetites cost this country. These people are mediocrites to boot, we can and have to do better.
Barbara (L.A.)
I like Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is difficult to find two more intelligent, well-meaning people. How on earth to they manage to give so much fodder to their opponents, who spend more time digging up dirt than they do governing? And, even in our capitalist society, isn't there something obscene about ex-presidents becoming multimillionaires with speaking fees?
redandright (Louisiana)
Maybe it's because Bill and Hillary are corrupt to the core?
Sophie L (Connecticut)
No. These are two brilliant people who get asked to speak more days than there are on the calendar.
Crispin (Norwalk)
"their opponents, who spend more time digging up dirt than they do governing? "

Neither the author of the book "Clinton Cash", nor the editors/investigative journalists of the NYT, WaPo nor Reuters "do governing"
Louis Anthes (Long Beach, CA)
First of all, regarding the substance of the claims. It is at least better that Russia control nuclear technology, including nuclear explosive material like unprocessed raw uranium, than for the same technology to go any of the neighbors of Russia.

Second of all, regarding the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation does not need to be expected to be free of scandal. I ALWAYS factor scandal into any equation involving the Clintons. That is what makes them so formidable as a political brand. They eat scandal for breakfast.
Gadflyparexcellence (Glen Ridge, NJ)
Stories of the Clintons' shady dealings, complicity with the powerful and rich and questionable ethics continue to mount. What more do we need to understand that a dynasty is about to hijack our political system to squeeze every advanatge out of it. It's time that citizens en masse take a stand against it. Where are you Elizabeth Warren or Lincoln Chafee or even Joe Biden?
Jordan (Melbourne Fl.)
Biden, your kidding right? That gaffe machine couldn't hold his own in a 4th grade debate on the merits of Kraft macaroni and cheese. As republicans laugh their way to a landslide in 2016...
Touchet (Atlanta, GA)
because the last thing the corporate controlled media wants is a politician that's on your side. The same thing happened with Bill. He didn't play the media game, and they hated him for it. The news will drag out every bit of dirt on them, and people WILL play the game. It doesn't look good for them. People believe the news above all else.
formerpolitician (Toronto)
Uranium One shows assets of almost $2 billion at the end of 2014 - almost all located in Kazakhstan.

The American conventional uranium assets mentioned in the article were sold in mid 2014 for $5 million payable over 5 years (Note 10 in the Uranium One annual report) to Anfield Resources (listed on the Canadian venture exchange) subject to US regulatory approval.

The USA is the 8th largest uranium producer in the world producing only about 3% of the world's uranium ranking behind Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Niger, Namibia, Russia, and Uzbekistan i.e Uranium One produced only about 1/2% of the world's uranium.

So, the American uranium production by Uranium One was both a tiny part of the company and a tiny part of the world's uranium production. It also appears that the ownership of this tiny production is back in North American hands.
Charluckles (Planet Earth)
There is not one politician, big fish or little, on either side of the aisle who would come away from such a magnifying glass without the taint of corruption and scandal. Which is not to excuse the allegations towards Mrs. Clinton, but instead to point out that this is the political system we have created in our country. A system I might add that has been cheered and supported by the New York Times and many on the right now decrying Mrs. Clinton' record in this matter. I understand that the media will be under tremendous pressure to make Hillary Clinton a beatable presidential candidate, but I can't support the attacks on Mrs. Clinton for taking advantage of a system when those attacks are coming from the very same people who demanded that the system work this way.
fromillinois (Chicago, IL)
The issue is our ex President and ex Secretary of State are major leaguers in (1) defining down what's ethical and appropriate (2) self dealing and 3) obfuscating it all. I simply can't think of examples that come close to their long walk on the shady side of the street. I'm not referring to ex governors, ex mayors or anything but former presidents and scretaries of state in recent history.
Charluckles (Planet Earth)
This is a joke right? Jeb Bush is also running for president. Are you saying that if we put him and his families connections, including connections to one of the many Bush family foundations, under the same spotlight that we could not also dig up similar if not worse issues than the ones being examined here? This is either extreme naivete or political posturing.
Touchet (Atlanta, GA)
My thoughts about this ended with this sentence, "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."

So before Hillary even signed off on it, it had to be approved by a NUMBER of people. Who were these people, why does the article ONLY mention the Clintons?
NeverLift (Austin, TX)
Because only the Clintons got millions as part of the deal. Doh!
Bian (Phoenix)
Kudos to the grey lady for running this story which should make us all wonder if any one has the backbone to consider if Ms Clinton and Mr. were illegally influence peddling. It looks like it, to put it mildly. And, the consequences here, specifically, Mr Putin controlling uranium is a disaster. You think Ms.'s Clinton now wiped clean server, had information on this? Would it be nice if the administration would look into this, instead of going after Mr Mendenez because of some trips to Santo Domingo and other non consequential matters. Mr M is a small enough fish for the justice department. Obama took on the Clinton machine before and he was elected twice. Maybe he should take on the Clinton machine again.
Margo (Atlanta)
Another vast right-wing conspiracy to be haughtily dismissed. No doubt the new AG will follow Holders' lead on the matter.
Thank goodness Hilary talked about campaign finance reform last week so we would know how clean and well intentioned her hands are.
Greg (Vermont)
If her hands are clean she should be pushing for campaign reform before she raises the $2 billion, not after. That would make her more credible, but she won't.
NeverLift (Austin, TX)
Greg: I believe Margo was demonstrating cynicism.
Elizabeth Bennett (Arizona)
I find it appalling that Russia owns 20% of US uranium supplies--and the voters never heard a word about the deal going down, effectively cutting off any opposition to what was going on. Even if there wasn't a direct "sign off" by Hilliary Clinton--she should have known about it. Now I have to wonder when the next "shoe" will drop.

As a Democrat I cannot understand why we only seem to have one, very flawed candidate to run for the Presidency. Even though Elizabeth Warren has expressed disinterest in running, I'm hoping that she will be motivated by this latest scandal to think again. Please!
obamanable (Madison, WI)
This is the face of liberalism, my dear. Truly anti-American they are. I am quite frankly shocked that the NY Times ran this story as leftist as it is. Must not think Clinton is liberal enough.
Sometimes it is important to read the fine print. Direct from the article's authors: "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown." Repeat: "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown."
When there is an answer to that question, call me. In the meantime, give us all a break from this kind of "push" reporting that covers a lot of territory - literally and figuratively - but fails to establish any fact to directly support its intended conclusion: "Foundation contributions lead to Hillary's actions".
Don (Washington, DC)
I suspect the story would have been more persuasive if Scott Walker's name had been inserted everywhere Hillary Clinton's appeared, and the Koch Brothers were doling out the giant donations, not Russian financiers. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
When there is an answer to that question, call me. In the meantime, give us all a break from this kind of "push" reporting that covers a lot of territory - literally and figuratively - but fails to establish any fact to directly support its intended conclusion:


*Pushes fingers firmly in ears and loudly chants "Lalalalalala"*
Not Hopeful (USA)
One suspects that the appearance of impropriety in this case, whether justified or not, is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Clintons, as with many other highly placed members of the Clinton administration, have been very successful at spinning their experience into gold. While commonly done, it still leaves an unpleasant taste among so many of us who have to work for a living. And for many of us on the liberal side of the political equation this is one of the reasons we find Hillary Clinton to be an unsatisfactory candidate.
Jeff Viar (Los Angeles, CA)
Even circumstantial evidence merits consideration when it starts piling up to this kind of elevation. The thought that Mrs. Clinton might be involved in anything approaching the sale of influence is troubling, to say the least. The fact that it is centered around Russia obtaining control of Uranium based assets in the United States makes such a possibility downright frightening. I hope that isn't the case, but things like this certainly warrant further investigation.
NeverLift (Austin, TX)
If this story concerned the multimillion dollar bribery of a prominent Republican candidate, the Justice Department would have been all over it months ago.

I do not for a minute believe the NYTime investigative resources surpass those of the FBI. It follows that at least the stink, if not the carcass, of this putrefying mess has been known to the various agencies involved with investigating and then approving these deals for quite some time. But not the White House?

Mr Obama: It is time to stop pretending you had no hint of this, and direct the Justice Department to throw their best resources at uncovering the details of these apparent gross violations of federal law by your highest ranking appointee, and then pursuing the culprits, in Federal court. Not later. Now.
srwdm (Boston)
It's time for Ms. Clinton to be shown the door.

But who in the Democratic Party hierarchy can tell her this? Her sponsor, Mr. Obama?

I'm trusting that Senator Elizabeth Warren (who goes to sleep and wakes up with the fire-in-her-belly of profound income inequality) will eventually determine that Clinton corruption stands in the way of addressing that mantra—and that she can't just stand on the sidelines hoping for influence.
Jay (L.A.)
A charitable foundation is clearly being used in a cynical ploy to scrub donations from the stigma of buying influence. One only needs to look at the Clintons' past behavior - most recently, Hillary's destruction of 30,000 "personal" emails - to realize that they excel at gaming the system. What I can't understand (forgive my very thick head) is why all other Democratic candidates remain in hiding. Forget Warren - she said she won't run and is in any event unelectable. At least the Republicans have a real field. Lord, please give me a Libertarian with a social conscience...
Me Again (Elsewhere)
A Libertarian with a social conscience is a contradiction in terms. Do you know what a Libertarian is? Theyre all about the individual.
Mr. Robin P Little (Conway, SC)

I can't believe the Clintons are secretly involved in a shady, quid-pro-quo deal that put huge amounts of money in their and their foundation's pockets, while she was Secretary of State. The next thing we will find out is that many of the revelations in the book 'Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,' by conservative author Peter Schweizer, are true. It must be more of that vast right-wing conspiracy which has concocted all these stories.

Is it November 2016 yet?
RS (Philly)
Yeah, but he is just such a charming rake and the 1990s were so wonderful, so all is forgiven.

(Never mind the serial abuse of women, the growing but ignored terrorist threat and the bursting of the dot-com bubble that plunged the country into recession.)
Larry (Morris County, New Jersey)
2 of those 3 occurred on your guy's watch -- along with the worst strategic error ever by a US President -- the War on Iraq, and a near-Depression. Sell your oil elsewhere.
Larry (Illinois)
You can't blame George Bush for the mess he inherited from Clinton!
Laura Hunt (here there and everywhere)
Sorry to burst that bubble Larry but the bubble started losing air around 1999-2002. I know, I'm in finance and I remember those days well. The President, any President is not responsible for that happening.....too many dot com businesses with no track record brought those markets down. Just setting the record straight.
DG (St. Petersburg)
As I understand it, Mrs. Clinton is now blamed for helping the Russions and for destroying US relations with Putin and Russia.
Richard A. Bucci (Binghamton, NY)
This is a compelling and troubling story. As Hillary Clinton's campaign unfolded projections estimated that her war-chest could be $2 billion. A staggering amount even in this age of unfettered special interest engagement. Now we have a clearer and disturbing picture of how that astounding figure would be achieved. A continuation of influence peddling that defies comprehension, knows no bounds, and has national security implications. This cries out for an immediate Justice Department investigation.
Michael (Potomac MD)
Too bad the Justice department is politically compromised.
Ron Cohen (Waltham, MA)
With the Koch brothers poised to put their billions behind Scott Walker's run for the presidency, Hillary is the best we've got (although personally, I'd favor Elizabeth Warren)–perhaps for the very reason that she's not squeamish, and will do whatever it takes to win. Too much is at stake. If the Koch Klub wins the Oval Office, game's over for American democracy, flawed as it is.

So, to all those high minded liberals, who see themselves above the fray, I say hold your nose and support Hillary. Life is full of bad choices, but sometimes, we have a moral obligation to choose the lesser of two evils. This is one of those times.
teoc2 (Oregon)
sorry but Hillary Clinton is so far beyond a "bad choice" that I will vote for anyone other than her.

I've voted for the Democratic Party candidate in every election since 1972 until last years election here in Oregon for Governor where I voted for Chris Henry of the Oregon Progressive Party.

Kitzhaber had show he too was beyond a "bad choice" and the rest of the state discovered it as well and a bit too late because of our state's depleted fourth estate not doing the due diligence require of it.
Paul (North Carolina)
I reluctantly agree, now that I've read your comment. She's probably our best hope; however, under the circumstances, I still think it would be better if a candidate just as strong and electable, but with less political and ethical baggage, would emerge.
JoeJohn (Asheville)
Ron, if you favor Elizabeth Warren, why not work to entice her to run. It seems to early to settle for a deeply flawed HRC.
Iced Teaparty (NY)
The Clinton's seem to be characterologically indisposed toward conducting themselves with keen eye to their public rectitude.

I for one am tiring of it. if we, the Democrats, are going to lose, then we're going to lose. But we need an honorable candidate.
Sandman (Texas)
Even the most ardent drinker of the Clinton kool-aid has to ask himself: "What are the odds this particular donation would be made by these individuals at precisely the time this business was before the government (by chance)?". To say this was NOT a "pay to play" scheme is to assert this event was likely. Granted, this is circumstantial evidence.... Like finding a piece of DNA at a crime scene and considering the odds it does NOT belong to the individual the lab says it belongs to. But we do that in court rooms all the time and draw the relevant probabilistic inferences.
James Logan (Delray Beach, Fl)
"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.”

--'nuff said.
Pablo (Colorado)
Ad hominem
Fabb4eyes (Goose creek SC)
Donors are nonpartisan. Next issue.
Jack M (NY)
It all depends on what the definition of $100 million is.
Salt Glaze (Coastal US)
Integrity, just another meaningless word. Winning has become the only virtue. Please not another word from the left about republicans' obsession big business and bigger money. IS there anyone out there who believes Mitt Romney would ever been party to such shenanigans?
Terry (Dallas)
Normally, I don't go anywhere near the NY T imes because it is so politically biased for the Left, meaning that truth takes a backseat or has completely missed the bus. However, when a truthful, informative article is published, I will read it.

The Clintons are, and have always been, grifters. They will do anything for money. Selling out their country is included.

The Clintons broke many the laws, deceived the public, hid their actions and hurt the country. For Hillary, the motive for self-enrichment appeared to always be first.

These last 6 years have been h3ll for most of the country, thanks in large part to the current leadership. The Democrat party is being run by radical Leftist extremeists, and the Republicans are being run over by herd after herd of RINOs. The only thing that I think will reverse this is a true Conservative in the WH. I know that Dems will noit agree, but it is a mess and it has to be cleaned up by responsible adults. Follow the law, support a free market economy, enforce immigration laws, support the US Constitution, untangle the once-free press (which has become State-run media), hold politicians feet to the fire (and fire them) if they break their promises, and realize that a strong country MUST support Borders, Language and Culture.
Steve Z (California)
First of all, the office of president CANNOT be "For sale." These allegations, if true, raise considerable concerns about that. I hope we have an immediate investigation into this.

I'm also disappointed that both Clintons have changed the definition of spokesman from communicator to liar.

Not Hillary.
SMiller (Southern US)
Three words can sum it up. "Appearance of impropriety."
Diane Montague (New York)
Even if we accept that most politicians will do a few sketchy things here and there, the Clintons take the modern cake(yellow cake in this instance).
Anyone who would leave the WH filling their proverbial pockets with silverware, china and furniture that did not belong to them deserves a lie detector test.
Let's not fool ourselves, the Clintons believe(and it has worked for them so far) that they just have to deny, say it's old news, and everyone will let it go. Why are Dems so eager to elect liars and scammers? There are lots of honest dems who would make a good leader.
Yes, I would like to see a woman president...but first, I would like my candidate to be truthful, open, and not have greed as the first item on her agenda.
NorthXNW (West Coast)
Honestly, this is scary, because the scent of corruption, graft and treason is strong. Yes treason. The revelation that a news agency, Reuters, uncovered Foundation tax returns were edited to obfuscate donations from foreign governments is troubling. Republicans and Democrats alike, with a sense of decency, should agree the government and it's influence is not for sale.
Defiant (America)
Lucky for Hillary the DOJ has no interest in punishing Democrats for ANY crimes!
Tony (New York)
Except Senator Menendez, who had the audacity to disagree with Obama.
A Guy (Lower Manhattan)
Yeah, and your boys George W and Dick Cheney sure got hammered hard for that decade of war based on lies. Good ole Democratic favoritism. Oh wait...
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
Its just that Clintons are good at deal making.
CommonCents (Coastal Maine)
This revelation is further reason to elect her President...YOU GOTTA WATCH THEM ALL THE TIME!
Bob Bunsen (Portland, OR)
It's just as wrong for the Kochs and other wealthy donors in America to buy influence as it is for the Russians. It may appear to be more threatening when foreigners attempt to control what goes on here, but history shows that Americans can have just as much to fear from other Americans as they do from those in other countries.

Who would you rather have ruin our country - the Koch brothers, or the Russians? I don't think the Kochs are any more interested in strengthening the US than the Russians are. They just want to make as much money as possible before everything crumbles around them.
Eagle (Durham)
The criticism of the author and sources is fair. Researchers must understand the motivations and intent of authors of secondary literature. Sources have to withstand external and internal criticism for them for them to be creditable sources; otherwise everything that stems from it is suspect or debunk. Remember the Dan Rather letter about Pres. Bush's service record; it did not stand up to external criticism and everything that flowed from it became moot.
Historian (North Carolina)
This is so disheartening. Once again Bill Clinton, and possibly Hillary, have shown at the minimum spectacularly bad judgment. In the 2016 election we will be faced with a choice between an awful Republican whose policies, dictated by the base, will continue to harm the majority of Americans and the world, and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party whose policies are mostly enlightened. Why do the Clintons continue to permit their bad judgment and greed get in the way of what is good for America and Americans? Why do they put at risk their political future and the good of America and Americans?
Laura Hunt (here there and everywhere)
Are you kidding? By 2016 the Times will have given Hill their endorsement and the gullible will forget all of this as will most of the press. You can take that to the bank.
DogHouse49 (NYC)
$500,000 for a speech.

Tigermoose (St. Loius)
We need a viable 3rd party candidate that truly represents democratic values!
DeltaBrain (Richmond, VA)
Is this some kind of new cold-war slant that the Times is taking? Hidden commies in the State Department secretly helping the Russians? Bill & Melinda Gates are also major donors to the Clinton Foundation (which does charity work mostly). I suppose they also need to be questioned.
Expat (US)
They are also American.
Cas (CT)
Are they trying to corner the Uranium market? Then we should probably look into it.
David (Nevada Desert)
Is it still OK to vote for Hillary?

I would not flip a coin to choose between Hillary or, say Jeb Bush. While the Clintons may be rich via the Clinton Foundation, it is not the same as the Koch's or the Walton's billions which are being used to create an aristocracy/feudal system in America. To understand the Clinton's, watch "Downton Abby." To understand the superrich, watch "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall."

Given the choice, I have to vote for Hillary and the Democrats because I am part of the >47%, part of the salaried working class. After all, the Clintons were once Arkansas white trash and understand what it means to be poor.
Laura Hunt (here there and everywhere)
Right because when a Democrat becomes quite wealthy (Soros = Hedge Fund) that's ok because......we he's a democrat. But when a republican gets rich that's greedy and Un American. I see the logic now. Top 7 of 10 wealthiest in the House/Senate are Dems.
6strings (North Carolina)
Calling on Elizabeth Warren to enter the race.
Larry (Illinois)
The fake Indian who "earned" $400,000 per year from Harvard?
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
She doesn't have the objectivity, she is very one sided.
Sandy (Short Hills, NJ)
There should have been a moment in time when Hillary Clinton asked herself (and Bill) "Should we take the money, or should I run for President?" Her ambitions were well-known at the time the Foundation was established, and if she had wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, or a genuine conflict of interest, she could have chosen to do it. But the Clintons want it all. Now, Democrats have to decide how far down the road they want to go with a flawed Hillary Clinton. Americans will suffer if we lose the White House. Bill and Hillary? Not so much!
Kati (WA State)
Wouldn't it solve all those issues if we relied on wind and sun for our energy instead of nuclear material and oil and coal?

Isn't it time to turn the page on nineteenth and twentieth century means of extracting energy?
Michael (Potomac MD)
Do you turn off the lights when the wind won't blow and the sun doesn't shine?
Does your car feature a roof mounted windmill?
What you're describing is an 18th C lifestyle, to bed and to rise with the sun, travel no farther than a horse can run, etc.
William Turnier (Chapel Hill, NC)
This story reminds me of NYT reporting on Whitewater, lots of innuendo and facts that do not tie things up. It would be good to know, for example, what is the status of the global supply of uranium. The article makes it seem that Russia is going to tie it all up. Then it notes in only one sentence that the world market for uranium is down in the dumps. That implies an over supply.

You can do better than this. It is far too reminiscent of your Whitewater coverage which lead to nothing except for the appointment of a special prosecutor who decided that his status gave him leave to investigate the Presinent's sex life. We need peace and prosperity form our government. This article does not address those issues, even obliquely.
Rita (California)
The cycle repeats itself. Dubious story from a Republican operative gets legs from the national press. Outrage over the insinuation leads to the demand for Congressional investigation. Millions of taxpayer dollars get spent on Congressional investigation and show hearings without ultimate findings of impropriety. Viable candidate gets trashed. Mission Accomplished!
Cas (CT)
Misdirection. Whatever the current commodity price of Uranium, it is obviously not in our interests to have Putin control half of it. Not to mention that he supplies it to Iran. So, we are negotiating a deal that will not stop them from enriching OUR uranium. Smart diplomacy, my foot.
Pablo (Colorado)
Rita , good thing you aapparently already have all the facts
twbasham (Baltimore)
This is a nothing story. This is not news that is fit to print. A whole committee had to approve of the transaction. The Chairman of the company that sold the mines said he never talked to the former President about the sale. He went to the American Embassy to ask for assistance, which is what he should do. This us purely a character assasination piece. This is just like the movie absence of malice. Take unrelated facts, string them togther to imply that samething unethical or illegal occurred without a shred of evidence. The under secretary said Mrs. Clinton never tried to influence him in any matter before the committee. This is a malicious attempt of character assination.
drindl (NY)
And so the swiftboating begins. Buried in the middle of all of these dubious allegations,

"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown"

But let's write 5000 words on it anyway
Odyss (Raleigh)
Swiftboating? You do realize that you cannot cheat an honest man? All this is the Clinton's fault, not the reporter's.
Cas (CT)
No, I am sure it was just an incredible coincidence. Are you really that naive, or just blinkered by your ideology?
Chicklet (Douglaston, NY)
Maybe the email history would shed some light on this. Oh, I forgot, she deleted those....
Charles (United States of America)
This is the reason Democrats voted for Obama in 2008. The secret to Obama's nomination was in getting party activists to come out in the caucuses, that way the Clinton campaign money in primary states was overcome.
Odyss (Raleigh)
I believe in 1993 when Bill and Hillary looted the FBI clearance files, they took note of all the dirt of all public figures. Obama in 2008 had not been a public figure in 1993 and so there was no dirt on him.

Is it really a surprise that no one who was a public figure in 1993 ran against Hillary, just a new face on the scene that they had no dirt on?
JDB (Corpus Christi, Texas)
I am not a a fan of the Clintons, but have no strong feelings against them either. I trust the media less than I distrust the Clintons. I wish it was possible to read a story like this and believe that it is 100% accurate. And I am not saying that this story isn't 100% accurate. But because so, so much of what the media reports is wrong, I believe none of it. The authors of this story are simply employees of the NYT. They don't have the kind of access to the truth that they represent they have. The media have agendas. They need to make money. They will do whatever it takes to stay afloat financially, which means they will do and say anything (accurate or not) to get eyeballs on their stories and be exposed to advertising.
Michael (Potomac MD)
"I trust the media less than I distrust the Clintons"
Which means you trust the Clintons a lot? Or you distrust the Clintons a lot and trust the media slightly less? I'm confused.
Gardener (Ca &amp; NM)
No revelation. Politicians & corporations are in the business of selling the U.S.A. away to foreign interests, friendly & otherwise, in a continuing "fast track" to globalization. American security, though outlined as a goal by our government through constant surveillance efforts, is not top of the list in promoting democratic integrity in America. TPA though, to which President Obama gives full support, while Republicans & a few Democrats swoon for it, is top of the list in continuing efforts to cushion the wealth of politicians and Corporate elite during the change over into what is coined, "the new world order." Information in this article is not shocking, tip of the iceberg for candidates of both political parties in muddy speculations as we move into the campaigning phase for the 2016 presidential run. We desperately need a clean Democratic-Progressive candidate for the 2016 election, but where is such a person who will stand for a more equitable nation to be found from either political party when Citizens United rules the day. Republican candidates are pathetic in their regressive dogma and Hillary Clinton, for me, not a chance, as indicated by years of fence jumping speculation and her pathetic showing in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Nothing in her calculated efforts to muddy the Clinton's speculative enterprises has changed, and nothing to show that Mrs. Clinton has seen the light to become a Presidential candidate who is worthy anyone's trust.
MRP (Houston, Tx)
Sure it's circumstantial, but does anyone really think there's going to be another blue dress? I don't see the upside of having to endure another 8-10 years of the Clintons and their legions of weasels defending the indefensible?
Cas (CT)
"Legion of Weasels". I like that!
Smirow (Philadelphia)
Most importantly this article shows one of the most compelling reasons for an Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting any immediate family member of anyone who was president from holding that office. Whether true or not, too many believe that a former president is able to exercise great influence over executive decisions and too often retains the fund raising network used in reaching the presidency.

There is already too much evidence to show the outsize influence that even a mere candidate for the presidency wields for anyone not already holding a vested interest to feel comfortable about the present state of affairs. It is not just the revelations about the Clintons that should produce discomfort but remember that when Romney ran against Obama a hedge fund was begun with one of Romney’s sons as a person in charge and many Romney supporters became investors in that hedge fund. One need only note that hedge fund managers derive income from the percentage of funds under management to see how supporters may have been currying favor by making virtually direct cash payments to Romney’s son. Of course, the Clintons’ son in law is also a hedge fund manager and many investors in that fund are “friends” of the Clintons.

Would not want to forget the Bushes; can it really be a surprise how much cash Jeb has raised for his campaign when Jeb has “inherited” the fund raising network of his brother and father?
Odyss (Raleigh)
The solution is to reduce the size and role of government in our lives. IF the politicians had a federal budget of $2 Billion to play with, then who would donate $2.5 Billion to get their person elected.
Larry (Illinois)
This is the only solution that will work.
Kate Woodward (Oregon)
Excellent reporting. Doggone sickening story. I was one of millions who anxiously awaited Clinton's announcement to run for president. For me, this is a game changer. Now what?
EuroAm (Ohio, USA)
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown." You going to listen to her (terrified and shaking in their boots) detractors or depend on your own intelligence and perception?
Odyss (Raleigh)
Soul search, see what's important to you and then pick the person closest to your beliefs.
leilani (TX)
The Clintons are by far the skeeziest, most grasping & corrupt politicians in the US today, crooked to the very core while they game this 'rules are only for the peons' system for all they can while they can.

So of course the Democratic Party power establishment can't wait to nominate her. Of course.
Henry (New York)
One would think that two graduates of Yale Law School might be aware of the idiom many of us learned in 1st form Latin that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
Rufino (DC)
Its a good thing that one of her first priorities as SecState was to "hit the reset button" with Vladimir (Ras)Putin!
Mr Phil (Houston, TX)
Should Hillary ultimately be elected President, she and Bill would make history as the first husband/wife to both be elected POTUS and, if any of these allegations bear fruit, the first to both be impeached, as well.
Adam J (Springfield)
The responses to this article defending Clinton are horrid but not unexpected. The left can rationalize and justify any action no matter how illegal or unethical it is as long as it means they beat the Republicans. The left should be ashamed of itself, but I forget that requires a person to actually have standards.
Ghoh (Staten Island)
Three questions:

1) What subsequent contributions have been made to the Clinton Foundation since the deal was clinched?

2) Was Hillary lying about not being involved in the decision or just incompetent?

3) "The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level." PLEASE??? An infinity of times PLEASE!!!
Robert (Washington DC)
Third item is not in the form of a question. Sorry, we can not award you any points. On to the Final Jeopardy round.
Margo (Atlanta)
Once the deal was done and $2.3 million delivered, why should there be more "donations"?
jacobi (Nevada)
It is amusing how many commenters fault the NYT for revealing this. I guess they don't view the NYT as a legitimate news organization whose job it is to report newsworthy events? If this isn’t newsworthy what is?
Larry (Illinois)
They can't defend the Clintons so they stoop to attacking the messenger
Michael (Potomac MD)
That's why most read the NYT. Confirmation bias. They don't want cognitive dissonance, or reality intruding.
That Oded Yinon Plan (Washington, D.C.)
Her nickname ought to be 'teflon.'

Benghazi - running guns to *terrorists* in Syria [for peace and democracy of course] - that inquiry was just "political".

People have already forgotten her deliberate deletion and deception about official emails, let alone whitewater.

If all that matters is she is a woman, and not a white male republican, there is nothing, short of executing a puppy on national tv, that will dissuade her supporters that it's her turn because.... well.... I'm not sure they know why....

because they believe what she says this week about the scandal last week?
Paul (North Carolina)
This story adds to the whiff of conflict of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's candidacy. This, together with Benghazi, really makes me question the sustainability of her campaign. I mean, who wants another 8 years of tortuous investigations? It really would behoove the Democrats to line up some other contenders in the event her candidacy does become unviable.
Dennis Mega (Garden City)
The sleazy Clintons, in their never ending pursuit of money and power, will sell their souls to anybody who will line their pockets. Their foundation is a sham which receives these questionable contributions because their connections are such as to open doors to any who can pay. What a sad situation to have to endure another presidential campaign by the phony feminist, Hillary, who protected her horny husband while he destroyed their marriage and lied to the country. The voters of this country had better wake up to the Clintons and their game before it is too late.
rjp3 (Cambridge, MA)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: American produced uranium is preserved for domestic (American) use, regardless of who owns it.

“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use reactor fuel.

Until that is applied for the Uranium is not going out of the country.

I think the NYT's might have wanted to put that up front and not buried in the article.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Neither France nor Russia want competition from Iran in the nuclear fuel business either.
Southern Boy (Spring Hill, TN)
Despite the vitriol expressed in these comments toward the Clintons, I imagine more than half of the commentators will vote for them to be the next First Family.
bill (Wisconsin)
The American ambassador to Russia was unaware of the Uranium One deal? To quote a recent fellow commenter, 'Mrs. Clinton... should not be the next president.'
Greg K (Dallas, TX)
Well it appears this round of Clinton dirty laundry is being aired early in the campaign season. If Hillary’s campaign is smart, it will hopefully facilitate getting all the scandalous stuff out early. Americans have a short attention span and even less ability for mentally processing nuanced detail, so by Election Day this will all be a vague memory. Citizens United has opened up unlimited anonymous direct campaign donations, so even as we have some clue of the Clinton Foundation machinations and how they may potentially affect Hillary’s policy choices, we will have zero visibility of who is calling the shots for any other candidates. Our elections have devolved into what can only be described as “grimy”…
good2go (NYC/Canada)
Here we go again. A nice long article from the Times based on hearsay, conjecture, circumstances, and outright lies. WMDs, anybody? Judy Miller under the table someplace?

It's sad to see the Times so eager to embarrass itself yet again, thoroughly manipulated by the wing nuts. I guess money talks pretty loudly.
Campesino (Denver, CO)
A nice long article from the Times based on hearsay, conjecture, circumstances, and outright lies.


Actually it appears to be based on Clinton Foundation tax records and other items in the public record about the uranium transactions. Not hearsay
Larry (Illinois)
The only lies are from the left: if you like your plan you can keep it! You'll get $2500 from ObamaCare! Al-qaeda's dead, Detroit's alive! Romney doesn't pay taxes! Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration about a movie!
Rob (Seattle)
I'm torn.

On the one hand, at least on the surface, why is it a problem that the candidate (Hillary) is considered guilty of wrongdoing when her husband is the one who was involved in the dealmaking and the fundraising? He gave the speeches, not her. Is a double standard being applied here? Would a male candidate be held guilty by association for the artful fundraising of his wife? Is this treatment of Hillary - gasp - sexist?

On the other hand, this smells bad. Hillary continues to appear aloof and out of touch, and is a deeply flawed and vulnerable candidate. The Democrats would be wise to field a genuine alternative in the primaries or her skeletons will all be exposed in the main election, to the benefit of her Republican opponent. I believe it is a serious strategic error if the Dems don't hold a somewhat serious primary contest.
Jane (New Jersey)
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee I, a lifelong Democratic voter, will take a deep breath, and because of his fight against drone killings without trial, NSA spying on Americans, seizure of property without due process, and a bill to rein in our out-of-control criminal justice system, will cast my vote for Rand Paul despite my many disagreements with his positions on social issues. On these, he cannot go against the constitution.
And I am not the only one.
Of couse, if Elizabeth Warren were to run...
Robert (Out West)
I am not at all sure why anybody would be shocked to find that in an advanced capitalist society, politicians, wealthy foundations, and corporations from around the world are deeply entangled.

If you'd really like to do something about this, you're going to have to do exactly the sorts of things that Republicans and the Right claim to abhor: you're going to have to face up to the reality that this is how capitialism and its politics work, and then seriously regulate both the marketplace and camlaign financing.

Have fun storming the castle.
Larry (Illinois)
This is not the fault of capitalism, this is the fault of Big Government. Make government smaller and less powerful and all corruption instantly vanishes
Odyss (Raleigh)
So the proper way to reduce quid pro quo is not to reduce the footprint of government and all the corruption that goes with it, but instead to expand the instrument of corruption even further? And why storm the castle? While the Democrats have circled the wagons around the White House, Republican state governments are remaking America.
Posey's Future (San Francisco, CA)
This is just a continuation of the watery entitlement that the Clinton family projects. I'm done with them. I'll never vote Republican so I guess my write-in ballot for Elizabeth Warren will be in some views a "wasted" vote but I just don't care for the Clintons. My prognostication for 2016 is that Marco Rubio and VP Carly Fiorina might just beat the Clintons. I'll hold my nose throughout.
Elizabeth Forquer (North Carolina)
Assuming for argument's sake that she didn't do anything illegal or unethical in regards to the events reported on in this article, the appearance is there. She and her husband have been investigated and scrutinized so much for so long (rightly or wrongly), it's hard for me to believe that she thinks situations like these won't be major issues for her.

This is why I was very surprised when Mrs. Clinton announced she was running for President. Does she not realize how situations like this look? Does she not realize that in politics perception is sometimes more important than substance?

But after reading some of these comments, I have a new theory: she does know how this will look and she's running for President as a decoy for other candidates rather than to actually win. As long as she is in the race, the majority of attention and attacks will be on her, allowing other candidates to delay announcing and/or fly under the radar, which will prevent the Democratic party from self-imploding the way the Republican party did in 2014.

But then again, I tend to be cynical and over-interpret things, so I could be completely wrong.
common sense (houston tx)
Hilary Clinton sounds like a typical Chinese leader - openly anti-corruption and herself seems clean, but her family reaps in millions of dollars because of her position. More embarrassing for us is the family member is a former American president!
timesrgood10 (United States)
Are we actually still entertaining electing these people to run our country? If so, why?
Stephen Martin (Los Angeles, CA.)
The article illustrates why it's not wise to have dynastic style Presidential Candidates. We are having a drought in California. The nation is having a drought in terms of the type of candidate needed to run this country. We have a 20% chance of rain tomorrow. I would like to see a 70% chance of having someone run for President who just more of the same. Everyone wants that, but it seems like for the time being, we're stuck.
John Bergstrom (Boston, MA)
An amazing story, it sounds like a John Le Carre novel - maybe it will be one soon. We hear a lot about "globalization" in the abstract, but we seldom see the actual narratives of the mutual inter-ownerships of corporations from South Africa, Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia, and so on. My guess is that, for better or worse, this would not seem so unusual if we had more information about the way business is done these days. Maybe somebody could write a book or make a movie, or publish an annual almanac, on how everything in the world is owned, it would probably be interesting.
As far as the Clintons' involvement - after the first frisson of creepiness passes, it really probably isn't that important one way or the other. Just a reminder for those of us who feel still feel regionally based, that the modern power elite, good guys and bad guys and in between, are totally global.
Ratatouille (NYC)
A lot of words used to not say much. Foundations take money from all types of shady players, it's a world that us plebes will never see. What I'm concerned with at the end of the day is wether Hillary Clinton would make a good president. And, I still think she will. I wonder whether this and surely many more stories that will appear in the next few months are timed to sell books, and increase clicks on a web page. Not good to see the Times buy into this.
DMS (San Diego)
I'm a hard-core feminist who will never vote for Hillary. She's no different than any other politician---she might be even worse than most in her dogged pursuit of power. She does not bring anything new to politics, no matter how grandma she tries to appear. She shed "women's issues" as soon as she took up residence in the WH. Not wise. And not forgotten.
N. Turner (Atlanta, GA)
This is not journalism, this is advocacy for republicans and republican talking points. I'm now embarrassed to even say I read this rag.
Jim Novak (Denver, CO)
Correction of the Century! "An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer."

Yes, the long-ago discredited, wingnut hack that forms the sole basis for this entire story is named Schweizer.

You would expect that professional journalists would be able to competent pull off a hatchet job.
Forrest (Camp Murray, WA)
It's as if Hill and Bill are trying to get back into the White House just so they can pardon themselves. What they've long deserved is jail time.
Adam (Maryland)
Of course you can vote for whoever you want, but I think we should really consider the possibility of nominating someone other than Hillary. Once the democratic nomination is settled, the party will need to back that candidate.
MDABE80 (Los Angeles)
I have a 501 foundation. If my foundation had done a tiny fraction of this garbage, I'd have been put out of business by IRS in 10 seconds. Talk about unequal treatment!
These Clinton's are simply grifters. There is no chance HIllary could or should be elected as anything.
James (San Clemente, CA)
This is going to provide enormous fodder for Republican scandal-mongers for the remainder of the election campaign, and is potentially an election-killer for Hillary Clinton. The real question is, are the Clintons behaving more like political leaders and foundation runners, or oligarchs who will do a deal with people like Putin when it is to their financial advantage? Much will also be made of the fact that Hillary violated her agreement with the Obama administration to ban foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and to publicly disclose foundation donations. I can already see the demand for numerous new investigations, and, of course, another subpoena for Hillary's e-mails.
Greg (Graf)
As I read this article late last night fuming at the audacity of the Clintons, I wondered if this would make headline news everywhere. I awoke to new headlines of the President apologizing for a drone strike that happened back in January, strategically changing the days narrative.

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you side with, this well written NYT article should outrage every American. We deserve better than this.
mmp (Ohio)
Before we all run screaming into the night, please read about the many facets of the Clinton Foundation
Cold Liberal (Minnesota)
I despair at the thought of this woman and her husband back in the White House. High level grifters working their Foundation , now having their daughter a high salaried Vice President . Can't the Democrats find another candidate? This is getting past the point that holding your nose and pulling the lever doesn't even seem rational. I'll sit this one out if there isn't a more viable candidate.
Larry Venable (Broken Arrow OK)
When it comes to ethical questions on donations made to the Clinton Foundation while a Hillary was serving under an official capacity as the Secretary of State; it comes down quite simply to the old adage "if it looks lik e a duck, quacks like a duck; then its a duck"

The truth is that now the Foundation is refiling Tax Filings to account for foreign money contributions to their Foundation they somehow "forgot to report". Wow how convenient. If you think that was by accident, the theres a bridge I'd like to sell you.

There were lots of questions when these transactions were first reported in 2009, but now the story is coming home to roost; Its not a right winged conspiracy, its even easier--> its just dishonest unethical behavior. If a republican presidential candidate did this, the press would be crying foul at the top of their voices. I want to see that same response with Hillary. This is dishonest.

Too many democrats seem OK with unethical behavior, hopefully the MSM will stand up and say ENOUGH. When it comes to the office of the president; dont we have the right to expect the candidate to be scrupulously honest??
Campesino (Denver, CO)
The truth is that now the Foundation is refiling Tax Filings to account for foreign money contributions to their Foundation they somehow "forgot to report". Wow how convenient.


I be Lois Lerner is available to help!
jacobi (Nevada)
I can't wait to see the attack adds. This is going to be an entertaining election...
Title Holder (Fl)
There is an excellent article in the Washington Post( the a surge of contribution to the Jewish Republican Coalition. How is this not outrageaus than the Clinton deals? The GOP is seeing a surge of financial contribution for opposing a twice elected US president and aligning itself with a Foreign Head of State.
Having said that, I just have a simple question: what's wrong with the Clintons? Don't they have enough money already? Haven' they learned from their past? Or have they've been living in their buble for so long that they can't make a difference between what's right and wrong anymore?
The entire Political system in the US is corrupt , corrupt to the core.
DPM (Miami, Florida)
And why, we must ask, would the current President be pressing for a NAFTA-like Asian free trade treaty, when such a treaty would appear to be philosophically contrary to his professed progressive beliefs? Because there is a formula for how high-office holders become fabulously wealthy after their time serving in high-office. Following the money explains much about motives in life and almost everything in politics.
Tom Mergens (Atlanta)
This is a great article and shows very good research. It's sad to think that Ms. Clinton and her Foundation will likely succeed in painting this as 1) just one more vast right-wing conspiracy to taint her coronation, 2) people with an agenda stringing along altogether unrelated facts to support an erroneous conclusion, or 3) a case where those under Ms. Clinton at State, or within other agencies, made these decisions while she was off saving the world.

When will the electorate learn just how shady the Clintons are, that they are in it only for themselves, and are ready to sell out US National Security and the very lives of others in return for cash and power? Despite the thin veneer of respectability provided by their Foundations and charitable good works, they are charlatans. That is all they have ever been.
Eagle (Durham)
The story weaves a web without catching a spider.
Mr Phil (Houston, TX)
The wind has yet to drift the swarm of flies upon the web.
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
The spider never gets caught in its own web, its spun to catch others.
s. berger (new york)
An interesting article, for sure, but like Whitewater it will become grist for the mill and eventually prove nothing substantial. Since Citizens United all of us should be used to the proliferation of money to buy influence - there is nothing really new here. As for the Russians buying stock in uranium mines in this country, the article clearly points out that it cannot be exported for use in bomb making. It appears that there are many players involved and that this deal could have killed at many points along the way but wasn't. You have to ask yourselves, why were contributions made? Obviously, the way contributions are made all the time, every day, by corporations and nations that are buying influence. I'm glad the Clinton Foundation took the money, maybe they could use it for better ends.
Helen (Chicago)
There is clearly a double standard. While this article brings out seriously troubling issues, why is it that the NYTimes and others focus most intently on the sleaziness of Clinton and not on the sleaziness of the Republicans? As others have said, I would love a better Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton (Elizabeth Warren?), but please also make sure that the reporting is even.
reap (nyc)
If nobody, Democrat or Republican, recognized a conflict of interest when she was chosen as Secretary of State, why do so now? Hillary Clinton is not part of the leadership or of the board for the nonprofit.
Edward Weinberg (Louisville)
Responses are pure Clinton: "Move along, old news, nothing to see here, right wing conspiracy, discredit the source ("drag a $10 bill through a trailer park and see what turns up")" - oh, sorry, they already used that last one already. Enough already. I'm a staunch Republican, but I sure would rather see a fresh (and honest) face - such as Elizabeth Warren. Although I might disagree with many of her policies, I certainly would prefer honesty and integrity to the Clinton machine.
SAR (Palo Alto, CA)
This is more innuendo about Hillary Clinton parading as journalism from the NYT. If you could actually find evidence of wrong doing, you'd have a story. But you haven't here, just like you didn't with the email hit piece about Hillary Clinton. Please, please enough of your hatred of Hillary. Please go back to being to doing journalism.
John (Hartford)
Time magazine has more respect for accuracy than the NYT apparently. Maybe the Sulzberger's are about to sell out to Murdoch.

"The State Department’s role in approving the deal was part of an extensive bureaucratic process, and the chapter offers no indication of Hillary Clinton’s personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations. State has just one vote on the nine-member committee, which also includes the departments of Defense, Treasury and Energy. Disagreements are traditionally handled at the staff level, and if they are not resolved, they are escalated to deputies at the relevant agencies. If the deputies can’t resolve the dispute, the issues can be elevated to the Cabinet Secretary level and, if needed, to the President for a decision. The official chairman of CFIUS is the Treasury Secretary, not the Secretary of State."
sj (eugene)

first, i have never voted for any Clinton for any position.
second, if proven, this on-going opaqueness of the Clintons is damaging to the brand and to any presidential aspirations.

on the surface:
this tale involving the implied-entanglements of the Clintons does not pass any smell-test.
however, it does appear to be too early to make accurate assessments of any cause/effect relationships.
because, at this point, the authors have decidedly NOT connected any dots that are material to anything at all.
lots of questions and suggestions; but where, exactly, is the substance?

multiple-governments and multi-governmental agencies of the U.S. itself reviewed and signed-off on the sale---and not a single shred of evidence of any kind has been offered that links the then Secretary of State Clinton to this decision making process.

this report would benefit from additional facts:
for example:
the speech-fee paid to President Clinton for an ANNUAL investor conference via Renaissance Capital--
and why wouldn't former UK PM Blair and President Putin shake Mr. Bill's hand?--
begs for the following, among other items:
in addition to Uranium One, what other "clients" does Renaissance have?
doing business with whom?
when was President Clinton 'signed-on' for this gig? is there a relationship to this timing to anything else?
does any of this matter?

as a first or second draft, this story has potential.
the editors should have returned it for much needed additional work.
tt (Chicago, IL)
Can't wait to see the next article based off of the next book this guy is trying to sell. Will any actual research be thrown behind that?
Ratza Fratza (Home)
Oligarchs buying up assets; sound familiar? Half a million dollars for a speech -- Sure, there's no quid pro quo there. That speech must have had ...some entertainment or enlightening content at those rates. Chasing Hillary around for answers has become quite the sport. There's always Jesse Ventura.
The Clintons are the Oligarchs of America. America is becoming Russia as both political parties use the system to enrich themselves and sell out the Country. There is no justification for allowing the sale of this U.S. property to a foreign government. None. Everyone know that. Clinton made it happen and got $500,000 for it and his foundation (which is a license to steal) got tens of millions, of which they give 15% to charity and pocket the rest. We need to put politicians in prison with 20 year terms to send a message that this is not allowed in America. Neither Republicans or Democrats will do that, maybe Ted Cruz would. The comments here are the lamest I have ever read, only concerned about if this will affect Hillary's election chances. Sad.
jrsh (Los Angeles)
A more disturbing related article on former President Clinton's speeches being intertwined with their charitable foundation contained a passage on a Bill Clinton paid speech to the Carlyle Group which it referred to as a "very well connected company". It should be noted that this group owns a major Defense Contractor/consulting group (Booz Allen) that has contracts to directlysupport several of the major foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation as well as providing technical and support services to other major defense contractors that sell equipment to these "foreign donors." Recommend that this specific activity and its timing (Hillary may have served as Secretary of State at the time) be looked into.
DavidLibraryFan (Princeton)
My general observation about most national campaigns is there will be dirt on any individual who gets to the point where they can run with a realistic chance of winning. This applies to both Republicans and Democrats. Though I'm not necessarily sure if this will harm Clinton too badly, I do hope it removes whatever invisible barrier there has been preventing other democrats from joining the race. Right now it seems like the Republicans are going to have too many candidates running and the Democrats are going to have too few.
sj (kcmo)
I certainly hope that the economic sanctions against Russia covers the export of this uranium ore and financial remuneration from it's mining here in the US.
The clintons have always gotten away with these shady business dealings. Their attitude is that the American people will never hold them accountable because they "love us". Actually they are right. In the words of that famous individual who was the architect of Obama Care, "the American people are basically stupid".
Irving Schwartz (Tallahassee)
It goes from digust to humor watching the Clinton contortionists get so twisted up in their defense of the indefensible. It is all relative they say. The Republicans are worse. It's all politics. Hillary didn't know nuttin. Bill was just beeing a good friend to his buddies, the Clinton foundation helps poor children. But as Che sings in the musical Evita, "the money keeps rolling in from everywhere". Evita Duarte Peron is still loved in Argentina inspite of her greed and self indulgence. She, like Hillary, was skilled at using other people's money to buy love and inflence. Years from now little children will be bringing flowers to the final resting place of Regina Hillary. Reclinata in Buenos Aires has come to America. Don't cry for Hillary, she has achieved immortality in the eyes of her adoriing subjects.
This is just one more item on the list. If it were the only one, it might not matter much. However, she has so much baggage and so many targets at which to aim ads that she cannot possibly win in the general election.

Are we really destined to live in a country in which there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, but all three branches of the federal government are controlled by the Republicans for the foreseeable future -- a Republican controlled "one party state"?

(Of course, I suppose the rather meager and pathetic "silver lining" will be that, once the Republicans have had complete control of the federal government for many years, it might be mildly amusing to watch as they try to figure out how to continue campaigning on the "government is the enemy" slogan.)
J.M. (New York)
So, Putin controls the gas flowing into Europe and controls the uranium to power US nuclear power plants. WWII was lost by Japan by the Allies cutting off their energy supplies. We need to consider these moves, Russians have always been great chess players.
Wende (Montana)
Many commenters have either not carefully read the whole article and attachments. It isn't just the few millions from the Canadian to the Clinton Foundation, it is also the $30 million plus from Mr. Giusta who was the original owner of the Kazhak company rights that also now belong to the Russians. And the person who all this money goes to a foundation and doesn't benefit the Clinton's is delusional. Have you seen the salaries they pay themselves, and I am sure the perks the foundation pays for, hotels, flights on their speaking junkets, are pretty comfy. Lastly, to the ignorant person who said we needn't worry because they need a license to export Uranium from the U.S. Did you not not read that the trucking company has a license and all the yellowcake is leaving to Canada and no, it does not all come back after processing. It is very, very disturbing that there is such an easy and obvious run around on that regulation. The shipping/trucking company's blanket license to ship can be and is used to circumvent agreements made with the government not to take strategic minerals out of the country! NYT, that should be worthy of an investigative foray right there.
Anyone who thinks the money is not a quid pro quo is naive. That's why we care about Citizen's United. That's why gyrocopter man have risked his life a couple of weeks ago. Our country is being sold to the highest bidder or anyone with a few bucks willing to place it in the right places. The Clinton's go for cheap.
The Scold (Oregon)
Breathless reporting does not make a watertight indictment. Especially when charges are made/suggested out of context. That being said it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Clintons are blind deff and dumb when it comes to optics.

It is more than likely that this is all in a days work for our global oligarchs. The thing is this is probably all standard operating procedure. Does the article raise questions ~ that it made no attempt to answer? Of course. The first question that comes to mind is how could all of this gone on under the radar of the government and the press? Were people asleep at the wheel or they just did not think it mattered, until now?

Some of the Clinton behavior was emblematic of poor judgment but I also feel deja vu all over again, the Times makes mountains out of molehills like over the cell phone - email thing when it turns out that twenty- three recent GOP cabinet members used their own accounts and many government email accounts are purged every thirty days. Bad optics but in a real world context business as usual.

No fan of Clinton but would not the time to address the issue have been a year ago? As lining up alternative Dem. candidates was. And no doubt no one is going to talk/write about issues at the polls until election day as inner city voters have to stand in line for hours and have heaps of other indignities thrust upon them while large groups, women, minorities, and youth with vested interest can't be bothered to turn out.
DSS (Ottawa)
There is no doubt a story here, but it has to do with the US, Russia, Canada and Uranium mining. As for the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton uses his influence to seek large donations from whomever wants to give. I am sure the Foundation does not have a team of legal eagles to thoroughly investigate how that money was acquired and all the politics that surround the workings of Company business. If they did, no one would give. Secondly, if Hillary Clinton was to receive campaign donations from the Clinton Foundation, that would be a big red flag. I see no evidence of that happening. Lastly, if you want to find a scandal, let's investigate the source of all PAC money. I am sure you will find something juicy behind every donation.
Richard T (Des Moines, IA)
The State department was ONE of AT LEAST 9 agencies that needed to sign off on the Uranium. NYT is implying that the Clinton foundation recieving donations somehow affected not only Hillary, but somehow also the heads of those 9 other agencies as well. That's one heck of a bribe.
DennisG (Cape Cod)
As a conservative libertarian who obviously bears a Clinton Candidacy little affection, this is genuinely puzzling.

How could the Clinton's, as deeply experienced in political matters as they clearly are, let this happen?

They know better. Or they should.
Irving Schwartz (Tallahassee)
What difference does it make? Wouldn't it be nice to elect a woman President of the United States? It is all about politics. The simple truth is that what you stand for is more important than what you do. Even if you are standing knee deep in slime and corruption.
Ibarguen (Ocean Beach)
The first red flag raised by this slanderous innuendo that the Clintons somehow, incredibly sold out their country's national security is the notion that there was something fundamentally mistaken in the many-leveled U.S. government approval of this business deal.

The article opens by citing, as if it were truth, a wildly exaggerated, boasting headline from, of all sources, Pravda: "Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World." It then proceeds blithely to credit Mr. Putin as "closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain," as if such control were meaningfully attainable, as if Russian corporate interests in uranium deposits in the dirt of other countries held devastating global security consequence.

Just for starters, the inconvenient truth is that 31% of known uranium deposits are in Australia, which recently banned sales to Russia over its behavior in Ukraine. Not that this symbolic ban is economically or geo-strategically meaningful, as Russian domestic production already exceeds its needs. Whatever the world's problems with Russia, it is one of the nations most responsible and, per force, most trusted to keep a lid on distribution of the world's nuclear materials - a nation facing its own internal and external Islamic terrorist threats.

This blatant, baseless scare-mongering serves only one purpose: to establish an unthinking panic in which to couch "unknown" connections between the Clinton Foundation and approval of this business deal.
Potter (Boylston, MA)
There is nothing here substantial about endangering national security. I hope NYTimes readers read the last few paragraphs of this article. And even from the article's beginning:

"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. ”

The US government could have, would have and will take over these mines if it is such a strategic threat. More than one government agency signed off on this; it is apparently not a security threat. This article is really or should be about money in campaigns and not innuendo pointing to corruption and betrayal of this country on the part of the Clintons based on a book to be published, is by an apparent partisan.

I’ll take a Clinton over a Bush or any of the current Republican contenders. The real problem is the the legal flow of money to ALL campaigns and the favors that will be due. This process is corrupted. It’s not about Hillary Clinton. Who can run a campaign without money and influence? Let the eager bashers look at the alternatives and how we got to these choices. Of those on the other side, who knows how “clean", not a single one would I want to even imagine as President.

So what’s up New York Times? Can we have similar articles in the near future about money in the presidential race and other races across the board?

But what an opportunity to bash Clintons!
Hot Showers (PA)
While the United States .....produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs. So what's the big deal if it would have been 25%?
Bill Jefferson (As far as possible from D.C.)
What a bunch of crooks, but I've had that conclusion for years - and it's just the tip of the corrupt democRat money machine that's been in place for decades.
miller street (usa)
Who else but HC is better acquainted with the problems of the times and the actors behind them. Clinton obviously has a relationship with relevant parties whether it be working class concerns (Walmart), or foreign affairs ( Libya and Iraq). Hillary is well equipped to exploit her deep experience in navigating complex terrain and coming out ahead.
Run Elizabeth Run or Run Sanders Run, help us Run away from the Same Old Same Old.
European Liberal (Atlanta, Georgia)
To HXB; the average American is never going to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. They seem too far to the left to me, and I'm a European who is used to much more progressive policies, even among so called right-wing parties, than the left-wing of the Democrats. But seeing and hearing Elizabeth Warren protest the corporations, fist in air, that gives me a bad feeling and reminds me of the Socialist Party Congress in my home country. And even though I'm pro choice, pro gay rights, anti-Citizens United, etc etc and supported the President through two elections- although I'm thoroughly sick of him by now- Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are too left wing for this European girl. And since most Americans are to the right of my positions, I believe that they are not electable, and should not run.
jfashwell (Durham, NH)
I had a lot of questions about this article which weren't addressed until almost to the end of the article. The section on Diplomatic Considerations was also telling.

Who actually approved the deal? Was it really just Mrs. Clinton?
"Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security."
Was there any quid pro quo?
"A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal."
Is this all 20/20 hindsight on business deals that took place from 2007 (G.W. Bush's presidency) to 2013?
"Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.
“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.” "
jeff f (Sacramento, Ca)
You comment that there is actually no evidence that Mrs Clinton did anything in exchange for anything else but of course the implication of this piece is something unwholesome went on. I am not sure what to make of this and why giving money to the Clinton foundation in an effort to curry favor with the Clintons is worse than dark money, PACs, bundled contributions that are pretty much givens directly to our politicians. This is how oligarchs work. How are the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson and his wife any different?
Chicklet (Douglaston, NY)
Come on, these people just want to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the first Female President!

I am sure a review of her email records would easily show she knew nothing about this. Oh, wait, she deleted them all.
Well, what is the chance that Bill and Hillary discussed these donations, it's not like they live together or anything. Mrs. Clinton has nothing to do with the foundation, that's why she refuses to comment on this stuff, it is beneath her.

A Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation spokesman will answer all these baseless charges, and Americans will just have to believe him. It's not like they have done this before, give her a break!
Michael Berliner (Madison, WI)
Now it's time for ALL of the Clintons and their children and grandchildren to disappear from the United States of America. Now I see how high political appointment can enrich no matter how much it might endanger national security. I have had enough of the Clinton political dynasty. The rest of the people who have responded here have done so with brilliance.
Washington, pay attention to this.
aaron (wa)
Hillary is far from perfect, but I would vote for her over ANY radical right wing republican. Conservatism is a mental illness and I have no doubt the right wingers will continue to attack and lie about Hillary as much as they want. Hillary Clinton WILL be our next president. ;)
This so called story is a story most Americans will not care about nor should they. The economy is the most important thing to most voters. Not benghazi, not using private email, or accepting donations from foreign governments.
Stephen (Oklahoma)
I'd like to know what sort of payouts from Clinton Inc. are going out to Lanny Davis, James Carville, and David Brock for their wonderful work defending the indefensible.
soxared04/07/13 (Crete, Illinois)
If what is described in this article is not a clear violation of ethics, and an irreparable breach of all the boundaries of what constitute a "conflict of interest," then I am terribly naïve. I admired President Clinton until his alliance with "that woman" ruined his presidency. I have cordially disliked Senator Clinton for her fluid ways with money, power, and integrity. However, given the non-choices for 2016 being served up to us by the Republicans, I was grudgingly prepared to support Secretary Clinton's nomination, and perhaps, even to vote for her. I cannot, in anything like good conscience, do so, now or in the future. This article clearly says that she and her husband (after he left office) through the Clinton Foundation, have been bought and sold, all in the name of "philanthropy." She has to prove otherwise. The Republicans will never let this go. She may have handed Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul, or Scott Walker, or (God forbid) Bobby Jindal (see today's op-ed pages for a précis of his governing philosophy) the 2016 general election. I have never been more depressed about American governance.
Lugan2u (Salem, OR)
I'm a Hillary and Bill supporter; not without reservations of the whole
political process. I'd much rather have Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, or Martin O'Malley as a candidate but fear they wouldn't have broad support.
The Clinton's are very much political critters of the times.
The actual story is probably more complicated. As is the usual case with
high profile politicians; I wouldn't be able to explain their reasons in
a simple sound bite.
Fahey (Washington State)
Well it is increasingly clear, that Candidate Clinton's support is going to be less than broad with more disclosures about these deals.
It is beyond belief that she is 'the one", the only one.
skinny quinny (nj)
I know have to look very closely at voting for Hilary. I was an ardent supporter, but after reading this article, I have many doubts.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that all of that money funneled into their Foundation did not buy the influence of the Clinton's. Please!
Thank you NYT's for this article.
I only hope that it makes it's way to a huge audience.
Brian (Brooklyn, NY)
It's investigative articles like this why I subscribe to the New York Times.
Chuck (Ormomd Beach, FL)
I will not be voting for Hillary in the upcoming election. The thought of selling our national security for "donations" is sickening and should disqualify her to run for president.

Life Long Democrat soon to be Independent.
Gorbud (Pa.)
If the donations buy influence that is illegal. If the Clintons IMPLY they are selling influence that is fraud. Just the Mark Rich alone pardon should have alerted intelligent people that Clinton could be bought and paid for. He delivers when the price is right. Name one other individual who gets Five Hundred Thousand for giving a speech. Paid by a bank no less. They both have a long history of accepting money (cattle futures) through backdoors, cellar doors and windows. Very creative but a little too clever by half.
JL (U.S.A.)
Those who call for Elizabeth Warren or some other candidate to declare for the Democrats fail to realize that the Clintons have a strangle hold on the party and major donors and will beat back any legitimate challenger to Hillary. Given the emerging groundswell for a Plan B, the Dems may trot out 1-2 "Potemkin candidates" to create the illusion of a contest but they will mostly serve to highlight Hillary's "experience" and "strengths." The end result: Hillary gets the nod, loses badly in the General Election and the Democrats become the minority party for years to come.
Samantha Lee (USA)
I don't know about that JL, when notoriously Clinton-compliant news giants (NYT's, WaPo) come out swinging THIS hard (and they are owned by the same interests you mention), methinks someone else is being poised to swoop in. The D party loves the long game. The question is, who was a barn burner during the last Convention...? There's your nominee.
tc (USA)
Sillery's track record is one of unending failure except raising questionable funding
Failed senator failed SEC. Of state
Failed wife
Jerry (NY)
I guess those 30,000 emails were not about yoga after all? I feel so naive.
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
Its time we woke up, collectively and keep our eyes open.
Hillary said some of the emails were about Chelsea's Wedding. But, yeah, it DOES strain credulity to think ALL 30,000 deleted emails were about innocent personal stuff (yoga, weddings and Apple Pie Recipes, etc.).

And I say that even though I have voted for Democratic Presidential Nominees since 1992.

Still, when you "delete" an email, it is not 100% gone. It just goes into the your email "Garbage Folder". Those 30,000 emails could be recovered by any bright 16-year-old. If I were Hillary, I would have them recovered and submitted confidentially, to an independent person at State and /or Congress, for review.
maximus (texas)
I expect better from the NYTimes. Schweizer has been shown to be dishonest and is unabashedly conservative. Printing this headline was irresponsible and inflammatory. There are no other sources sited in this article. We are assured that the NYTimes did its own research and didn't rely on Schweizer yet no other sources are named. This is sloppy, nearly unethical reporting. Either the NYTimes has a political ax to grind and this should have been an op-ed piece or it is no longer a news source that can be trusted.
MJ (V)
Another awful day for Hillary.

Worst . . . start . . . ever . . .
Phoebe (St. Petersburg)
Recipe: Take a right-winger who writes a book full of unproven allegations against a Democratic candidate; get major newspapers to report on this as if it were true; and voila ... have Democratic voters rip apart their candidate and throw her under the bus although the Republican choices are so bad it makes your stomach curl.

Could we just stop doing this and focus on probably the most important task the next president will have to handle? The selection of FOUR Supreme Court Justices. I would rather have HC picking those than Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul, or Chris Christie, or Carly Fiorina.
Maxine (Chicago)
Let's talk about anything but the Clinton record and character right? Anything.
Elliot (Chicago)
The NYT has not survived as long as it has by willy nilly printing political opposition allegations without researching them in depth. They would not have the reputation they have if they acted as such.

If you want to attack the facts, make a case. I don't hear anyone refuting the facts. Don't attack the facts simply because you don't like the messenger.
Onceler (Potomac, MD)
Disgusting hypocrisy!
joem (west chester)
Is this a case of: 'Our source was The New York Times'? If so, or not, how does this lay dormant? There must be some knowledge of this elsewhere and cross party lines. We'll meet again.....don't know where...don't know when.....
Me (NYC)
Isn't this kinda like a newspaper: NY Times may run an ad from Time Warner and at the same time not give it any favorable treatment when it slams its policies and such in various articles. Why would you think Bill Clinton and his foundation can't operate separately from the Secretary of State? It's 100% feasible to me.
tc (USA)
Only a naive blindly partisan chump could believe sillary isn't bought and paid for.
Add her STAGGERING incompetence and you have a failure
Tom (NYC)
The Clintons are a walking RICO conspiracy to get rich by controlling the government of the United States.
Frederick Scholl (Brentwood, TN)
What will it take for the public to disqualify Hillary Clinton?
A Guy (Lower Manhattan)
If your reaction to this piece is to shun Hillary and look towards the Republican candidates as viable alternatives, you are part of the problem. They all have their big money corporate connections as well. You can bet your bottom dollar that Jeb is covered in as much dirt as Hillary is.

The only way we can change a system mired in misguided representation, unethical behavior, and borderline corruption is to stop playing ball in the two party system.

Vote third party, people.
Larry (Illinois)
The only way to end government corruption is to make government smaller and less powerful. All other solutions will fail
R. Curtis Mulle (Olathe, KS)
After reading this article, I needed to have a shower to clean the slime all off. There might not be a direct quid pro quo, but it is beyond the realm of reasonableness to believe that there was not some gigantic influence pedaling going on. The Clinton Foundation may have not accepted foreign government donations while Hillary was Secretary of State, but that did not stop President Bill Clinton from accepting extremely large speaking fees to foreign governments. This may not have broken the MOU that Hillary signed when she became part of the Obama Administration. However, to believe that there was not some form of influence pedaling is completely beyond belief. We are going back to the day when the Clinton's are defining what the definition of the word 'is' is. The issue other candidates will have when they oppose Hillary is that this does fit nicely into a 15 second sound bite. This takes a lot of explaining and the voters eyes will just glaze over. At the end of the day, no matter how slimy and corrupt we may believe this is, 45 % of the population will vote for Hillary no matter what.
Jim (Colorado)
Bill Clinton blazed this trail of how an ex-President without family money can become exceedingly wealthy and powerful through active influence peddling. He's a lobbying firm with tax-free foundation status and a facade of benevolent wise elder. It's shameful the sheer sliminess of it all. It will be interesting to see if Obama tries the same approach when he leaves office. He, too could become filty rich and forge a dynasty for his family. Anyone "in the know" sees the whole playbook of it all; so it's a formula that could be followed. Of course no one could do it as well as the Clintons, who can do such things with absolutely no shame.
Ron (Arizona, USA)
... and Prescott Bush built gasoline factories for the Luftwaffe before WWII for the Nazis, and George HW Bush sold oil drill bits to the USSR in the 1950s and 60's which helped them become an oil rich nation. If the Democrats take money from one pocket the Republicans take it from the other one. It doesn't matter which party wins or who we elect to be president. It really doesn't.
JL (U.S.A.)
Audit the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. Both appear to be political slush funds to promote the economic and political interests of the Clintons. Similarly, Bill and Hillary use the Democratic Party as a vehicle to gain electoral office and thus continue their self-interested actions. It's the perfect scheme, especially when you convince a significant number of gullible people that you are selflessly doing God's work.
Petey Tonei (Massachusetts)
Money laundering ways to make other people feel good about donating to a cause named after a high profile politician. Hah.
no (ny)
Clinton can just deny any knowledge while promising systemic reform, and just "forget" any campaign obligations, when the news cycle has changed. If the poor, or minorities were allowed the same liberty, maybe we wouldn't have such massive incarceration.
Paul (Atlanta)
Has there been any disclosure of how much money these selfless uranium barons gave to the foundation in the years after their deal was done? Have they not been sustaining contributors to the foundation whose good works they supported so highly? Can't say I'd be shocked if they were one and done.
joe (island park, ny)
Is anyone surprised about the sleazy character of the Clintons. I give credit to the Times to follow this but come October 2016 the NYT will endorse her.
Kwhcstoeck (Oakland)
"Some of the connections...were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former Fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institute, and author of the forthcoming book 'Clinton Cash'"

What more do we need to know?

Look, the Clintons may play politics like the dirty game it is, but at least they're on our side. I'm not convinced Hillary is the best candidate for Democrats this time around, but this story smacks of being about the Times cash and Peter Schweizer's royalties as much as Clinton cash.
Michele (Somewhere in michigan)
So, with black money flowing endlessly from self serving black- hole pocketbooks- at the Times, this is deemed front page news? The lead sentence in the 10th paragraph plays a rather integral part of the story. Although, it somehow gets lost at the foot of the mountain of innuendo, supplied by your unbiased crack reporters.

"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown."
swoodard (Chicago)
We are the greatest country in the world, or so we keep telling ourselves. But it remains we have just as many Putins in this country as any other and these people are all about greed and gain for themselves. It touches everything from individuals to government, banks, politics, even the supreme court. It is time to pull our heads out of the sand and face reality. The unfortunate truth is that the law makers are the purveyors of the crime and therefore nothing will be done to reign any of it in.
anne (Boston)
I recall the Forbes article regarding the NYT article w/ the exact same charge re: Uranium and the Russians but in 2008 and for Bill Clinton. In the end there were several inaccuracies and insinuations in the story. At least this one is closer to what anyone who's not on the right can garner from this. There is a challenge but no link between Clinton and the end result for the Russians or anyone else. But it seems lots of posters are very "concerned", lol, we all know what that's about.
LouV (Italy)
Isn't it about time Democrats acknowledge, what many Republicans have known for decades, that the Clintons are about as slimy and crooked a couple to hold elected office since Nixon and I think they have him beat by a mile. How many times will you stick your head in the sand and claim it is all politics? Can anyone fathom why just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, the Clinton’s charitable foundation received $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra? A man who was an acquaintance but not part of their close circle of friends and advisors. And isn't it interesting since this deal went down, there has not been another significant donation, but any of the parties previously involved. To believe the timing of the donations was coincidental to the deal is to suspend reality! You may be one of those many closed minded Americans who hold their nose and votes along party lines or on a single issue rather than what is good for our country and our children's future, but my goodness, if HILLARY is the best there is, then it is a sad day for America!
gaynor powell (north dakota)
I liked Bill Clinton despite some of his more public gaffes, but let's be honest (something most politicians have great difficulty with), there are very, very few politicians who do not have a skeleton in their closet. This leaves a very unpleasant taste in my mouth and I hope that Mrs.Clinton isn't elected, I don't think she will be anyway, but it makes me wonder what else there is that we don't know about?
reid (san antonio)
if the clintons have learned anything, it is that Democrats have to be prepared to lie, cheat and steal as much as the Republicans do if they want to have a chance of winning.
A Guy (Lower Manhattan)
Stop voting for the lesser of two evils!

The mindset of voting for the lesser of two evils, which far too many people have, is part of the problem. There are other choices. You just need to find them because they generally don't have corporations lining their pockets and they lack the ability to get promoted on mainstream media 24/7.

If this behavior disgusts you and you want anything to change (given how our government has operated over the past two decades, I do not see how you could not want change), I highly recommend you go find a third party candidate who means well and vote for them instead of perpetuating the current system by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Remember, voting for the lesser of two evils is exactly what both evils want you to do. They're more than happy playing the long game and alternating which party happens to be less evil during any given election cycle.

Side Note: Do not expect your third party candidate to win. That doesn't matter. Opening up the race to more than two parties and making the Democrats and Republicans remember that the corporations paying them huge sums to gain influence (or to gain the hope of gaining influence) don't actually vote is what matters.
Eagle (Durham)
I'm still reading the article. I do not if it is true are false. Neither have I read the book; but the 10th paragraph of the article states "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown."
Then the paragraph provides as editorial assessment that inferring that the donations played a role in the approval of the uranium deal: "But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors."
This could be in the range of sloppy journalism.
GMooG (LA)
"This could be in the range of sloppy journalism."

Or common sense.
Alain Paul Martin (Cambridge, MA)
Rushing to judgement could permanently handicap the support of the Clinton Foundation, whose downstream track record is commendable in health, education and social justice. The upstream question about sources of funds is a normalization of deviance that applies to influential foundations like the Koch family's which may bankroll politicians, PACs and think tanks to advance various and sometimes nefarious undemocratic agendas.

Another note of caution on auditing large foundations: There are only a few organizations with the capability to conduct an effective summative evaluation beyond strategic and operational auditing, not only to follow the money trail, but dig into the governance and incubation of issues and unravel the web of stakeholders and negotiation dancers involved.

The work requires teams with skill sets ranging from laws governing business conducts and auditing to psychographics, competitive intelligence and post-third wave geopolitics. Alas neither the American Evaluation Association nor the international federations of auditors have focused on the role of major foundations as a vehicle by which "economic actors can subvert the political system for their own advantage just as the political actors can seek to extract “rents” from then political system for their own private advantage. One cannot expect long-term stasis in such a context" as concluded by Professor Bruce Scott whose ten-year research on the issue led to "Capitalism as a System of Governance".
Robert (Cambridge, MA)
All of these allegations can be easily disproven with a thorough examination of Hillary's emails. Oh wait, never mind.
viggo (Austin, Texas)
So the Clinton's were smart enough to manipulate rich people, including the Russians, into giving money to their foundation that ultimately goes to benefit poor people through disaster relief programs and other efforts? This is worse than the shroud of billionaire funded PACs attempting to buy elections how?

Hillary is being held to grievously unfair ethical standard that seems to have been invited by press. Please go after the real graft and corruption in politics, not something that is tangential at best.
michael Currier (ct)
Republicans have wanted free trade for ages. They want unregulated money flowing to campaigns. They have fought every level of regulation and oversight for as long as I can remember.
But this is what free trade looks like. We don't nationalize mines and banks and industries in this country and we worry about countries that do.
And yet let an ex-president start a foundation that chases big money and good works and big change around the world and that looks like someone enriching themselves?
The Bushes and the Cheneys makes speeches and float back and forth between industry and issues they care about. Cheney's connections to Halliburton did not disqualify him from serving and Bush 41's post white house speeches and fees did not keep Bush 43 from being in the white house. How does this work with a foundation suddenly look like a disqualifier
observer (New York)
What is the matter with these people? They are widely acclaimed to be brilliant, and yet they seem to lack a sense of propriety, of discernment -- whether it's him with Monica in the Oval Office or both of them accepting money in circumstances that obviously are problematic. She could lose this thing. She's not the fool-proof winner that Bill is -- she lost it in 2008, and before that she embarrassed herself by botching the health care reform project. It is terrifying to think that the composition of the Supreme Court and the health insurance of 11 million people depend so much on this one deeply, deeply flawed candidate.
htr (Vermont)
It's clearly time for us Democrats to reevaluate Hillary Clinton's candidacy. We are reading too many articles like this one. How Ms Clinton is going to convince anyone that she is for the "little guy" is beyond me.
Jerry Frey (Columbus)
Any honest person can recognize that Hillary Clinton and her husband behave in the same manner as Sarah Palin, i.e., public service means private gain.
wan (birmingham, alabama)
Ms. Rigas says it best. It is amazing that the Clintons have evidently no sense of propriety. From the article there are two things which stand out. The first is that the "yellow cake" is being shipped out of the U.S. without authorization. Ms. Clinton probably bears no responsibility for this. It does appear, though, that she and her husband flouted the agreement made with the Administration prior to her nomination as Secretary of State regarding the acceptance of foreign donations and the reporting of those donations. Why do both of the Clintons think that the rules which apply to others do not apply to them?
G Adhikari (chevy chase)
A few puzzling questions would seem to be in order: (a) Where is the evidence in this stroy that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state or senator, influenced this uranium deal? (b) Did she also arm twist all the other departments of the federal system which signed onto the deal , to ensure that it would go through? (c) In the absence of such evidence in this story, is the New York Times -- with its immense credibility across the political spectrum but especially among liberals -- lending a hand, however unintentionally, to an effort that might later prove to be unsubstantiated of trying the derail the candidacy of the most plausible and experienced woman contender that the US has ever had for the presidency?

The paper has made mistakes before with regrettable consequences. Remember Judith Miller's stories that lent high credibility to justification for the campaign to invade Iraq a dozen years ago? But, of course, let's wait to see what further evidence is reported in the days to come of Hillary Clinton's implied involvement.
Rita (California)
It is probably not a coincidence that the article starts with a reference to Pravda.
Verbotene Gedanken (Earth)
Scale Matters.

A match is too small a fire to be much use.
A forest fire is too large to be much use.
A camp fire is, roughly, the optimum size for a fire for Human use.

We, currently, have an Giant Forest Fire consuming everything around us and we're arguing over who we should hire to throw more gasoline on it?

I weep for the future generations that will pay for our stupidity.
Erik (Gulfport, Fl)
Other than being involved in a public sex scandal or violent outburst president in waiting Hillary will be elected by the legions that follow her like robots.
Keith (CA)
"American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations." -- But yet hundreds of millions of dollars can flood into dark money SuperPACs without anyone knowing it. A politically corrupting process expanded by the Supreme Court and protected by Congress.
pepe waxman (stilville, WV)
Bang, smoking gun, she's done. But she can't complain, she should have been done after the Cattle Futures issue.
peta (costa mesa, ca)
Marc Rich received a very unusual presidential pardon from Clinton after donating $450k to the Clinton library. Eric Holder helped facilitate that.
Clinton apologized for that. /sarc
brutus (seattle)
The farmer Brown rule applies here. "If something stinks, it's probably dirty."
Margaret Bradley (Fayetteville, Georgia)
One statement in this article that caught my attention and raised my suspicions about the article itself is this one: " At the heart of the tale" .
Banicki (Michigan)
This is why Amy Klobuchar is a good alternative to Hillary. Amy is a female senator from Minnesota with strong credetials. Give her a look. What has just come to light regarding Hillary Clinton has reduced her chances of becoming President. She does not deserve to hold the highest office of the land. Her lack of judgement is so profound that now the Democratic Party must scramble to find a viable candidate. First using her position as SOS to receive funds for their private foundation sounds like something the GOP would dream up. Also, the use of a private server to send emails while Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundations' acceptance of donations from foreign organizations while she was looking to run for President demonstrates poor judgement and an attitude of being above reproach.
bongo (east coast)
Ahhhh! It never stops. This is the epitomy of political corruption which is endemic in our beloved but morally bankrupt political system. Having left the White House bankrupt and in debt, now being worth hundreds of millions of dollars; no wonder they hung in there despite the most embarassing of perjurious statements. One has to admire the brillance of a Cambridge education and Ivy League schooling, somehow, something wasn't taught in the curriculum. " If you don't come to D.C. with a moral compass, you are not going to find one there", and they surely didn't. I am certain that an employee(s) at Uranium One in Russia was just pining to make a contribution to the Clinton Foundation. Actually this scenario sounds very familiar, kinda like something that occured upon which a movie was made. Ummm?
Tess Harding (The New York Globe)
"steal a little and they put you in jail,
Steal alot and they make you king."
~~Bob Dylan
anne (Boston)
So many "concerned" people, many who clearly have not even read the article. And then there's this:

ABC: "uncovered errors in the book"
Politico:"presents little evidence"
TIME: "no indication of Clinton’s personal involvement"
Southfielder (USA)
In other words, 80% of U.S. uranium production is in “other hands”. Whose? Furthermore, who else mines and produces uranium around the world? Where, and how much? Isn’t an exploration and statistical analysis of world uranium production basic to evaluating the importance of the Rosatom/Uranium One deal?

Surprisingly, the NYT journalists writing this story failed to do this basic background and fact check and provide us with this information; quite unsurprisingly Republican Party stalker and hatchet man Peter Schweizer also neglected to check the facts for perspective.

The story does note that Mr. Schweizer was formerly on the payroll of “right-leaning” Hoover Institution, which of course is funded by…who, exactly? This is the second basic background and fact check unfortunately left undone by the NYT reporters writing this story. We should have this information.

Could it be that a clear analysis of those global uranium statistics would make Mr. Putin, gloating about controlling 20% of US uranium production, appear to be the modern/day equivalent of Caligula gloating about having “robbed Neptune” of his sea-shells?

BTW, Russia already has enough nuclear bombs to destroy life on earth many times over. And uranium production for power plants, as the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi have proven, is a costly dead-end technology.

The smarter move for Mr. Putin would be to develop solar and windmill technology to power Russia when it runs out of oil.
The Clintons? Involved in questionable business shenanigans? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!!
W Henderson (Princeton)
We don't need an audit of the Clinton Foundation - everyone knows it is already as crocked as they are.
Dave Kerr (Pennsylvania)
Are the Clintons for sale?
richard (denver)
Apparently Clinton is not Far Left enough for the NYT and its typical readers.
Arturo (chicago, IL)
Slick Willy and Teflon Hillary.

Are there any ethical politicians?
cws82 (Orange County, California)
I'm an Orange County, libertarian-leaning Republican that voted for Barack Obama (and lived to regret it). I just have one question for Democrats--is this the best you can do?
(And thank you to the NYT for Pulitzer-level investigative reporting on this. I find it frightening that any of your readers can blithely dismiss it, no matter how politically partisan they are.)
Jack (Minneapolis)
Pretty tough to call this a right wing conspiracy when it comes from the New York Times....If anything this paper leans left and has been very kind to Ms. Clinton, President Clinton and President Obama. If this information is accurate how can anyone believe she should lead the Democrat party or the country?
Sandy Reiburn (Ft Greene, NY)
This may be the undoing of Hillary...There is no excuse ... this is not about the "vast right-wing conspiracy"...While there is no doubt a vast right wing conspiracy is flourishing now more than ever abetted by the Citizens' United ruling ...I cannot view this as anything other than quid pro quo misuse of government access to undermine our own patrimony.

I'm very dismayed...

While I'm at's also part and parcel of the lack of transparency vis a vis the TPP trade deal...our elected officials running the business of the USA with disregard to its shareholders...its citizens.
indievoice (NYC)
I think we can all agree that Clinton has wanted to be POTUS her entire life.

There is no way in hell that she would potentially throw her entire career away for a few million dollars in charity donations? That makes absolutely no sense. She is a very smart woman who has spent the last 20 years meticulously AVOIDING anything that could possibly be fodder for the media and GOP. She would NEVER risk her chances of becoming POTUS for A: Personal wealth, she has plenty. Or B: a relatively small charity donation!

Again. A CHARITY DONATION. Her life's work thrown away for a CHARITY DONATION. Oh and to make somebody ELSE hundreds of millions? What sense does that make? What could she possibly have to gain from getting involved in some scheme with these people? Nothing. Absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose. She would never do it.

Not buying this AT ALL.
Southfielder (USA)
Frankly, I’d be much more interested in learning where the “money trail” leads in the run-up to former Pres. Clinton signing the NAFTA “free trade” agreement in 1993, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act and approval of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 (allowing affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms), and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

After all: the NAFTA “free trade” agreement has since cost millions of Americans their jobs; the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Gramm-Leach- Bliley allowed the merger of commercial banks and securities firms into “too big to fail” banks plaguing us today, while the Commodity Futures Modernization Act opened the way for the flood of “creative financial products” which have since blown up the US economy as well as much of the world’s economy.

Together with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the economic policies of “Reaganomics” that followed, these three landmark pieces of Clinton legislation have had, and continue to have devastating effects on hard-working people across the USA and around the world.

Of course Republican operative P. Schweizer could not be expected to do a legitimate investigation of these pieces of legislation, or where the money trail accompanying and facilitating them might lead. But the NY Times reporters working on the present story could do this, and I hope they’ll do so soon, before we install another “Reagan Republican” or “Clinton Democrat” in the White House.
sue (Cleveland)
This Machiavellian conniving is what is needed in this dangerous world. Hillary is the type of leader we need to confront Puton, ISIS and a rising China.
Rodger (Miami)
There's no one to vote for.... Everyone knows the Clinton's, this is par for the course. Another article which any rational person concludes do we really want her as the Only Front Runner for the Party.

Then you have Jeb. Do we want another Bush, also dirt is about to come out on him very soon, then Rubio. Nice guy but Parents from Cuba. Plus in a interview session publicly states He is Unqualified to Hold the POTUS due to the US Constitution and the RNC is letting him take the stage....

What is going on here. Where has the Rule of Law Gone.

Where is the outrage? Or has America become Witless, No Backbone, Brain Washed, the go along to get along sheep.
Kona030 (HNL)
Despite this hit piece from the NYT, I would bet the NYT endorses HRC in a Sunday editorial around mid-Oct 2016..And as well they should, even with Clinton's flaws, she is still far better than whomever the Koch Bros hand picked puppet will be..
Bryan (Herring)
They rob from the rich and give to the poor (THEMSELVES). WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Eagle (Durham)
Why didn't the NYT do their own independent investigation? Why didn't they start from scrap? Why did they borrow anything from this author? The author lacks credibility. His works do not withstand internal criticism.
Bill Jefferson (As far as possible from D.C.)
You can try to deflect all you want, but this entire Clinton cabal of a crime family is just one big RICO conspiracy, top to bottom.

Finally, masses of people are coming to realize that.
Toni (Florida)
These revelations about the Clinton Foundation and those relating to her use of a personal email server while Secretary of State disqualify her as a credible candidate for President. She should withdraw now while there is ample time for the Democrats to select a candidate with at least a modicum of integrity and a chance of victory.
Marie-Florence Shadlen (Summerville, SC)
Agreed. This is jaw dropping.
Brian (NY)
I think this is something that does not look good, but yet there has been no actual proof of a quid pro quo and for all the supposed Russian control of our uranium they can't shop any of it out of the country without applying for permission. That doesn't seem like much control to me. Yet this is front page of the NY Times.

In the meanwhile the Koch Brothers, Adelson et al are out right buying politicians and our political system. The Republican party gerrymanders to create districts where only a Republican stands a chance of election while at the same time attempting to deny 11 million voters their right to vote with ID laws who they have admitted are designed to discourage those who would vote for Democrats. Where is the front page, investigative reporting of this?
Marie-Florence Shadlen (Summerville, SC)
Democrats should not cede the moral authority of being relatively less corrupt- even as we insist on project "exceptionalism over the globe.

The "other side is worse" or "we can't win if we play it straight" are not persuasive arguments.
Betsy (<br/>)
I feel like I was born yesterday. I had thought that despite the crumbling infrastructure, the climate, the weather, lingering and serious injustices, and the substitution of "me" for "I" in the nominative case, that in spite of all of these things and others, nevertheless, as a country, we sat on a wealth of democracy-sustaining oil and mineral reserves. Resources that in some sense the country controlled and that would protect us in good times and bad. Wish I had stayed in bed today.

While Republicans continue to sort out their contest for Presidential nominee in the traditional way that includes the voice of the voters, (as well as the voice of big money, of course), the Democratic party seems to have appointed Hillary its candidate. It skipped the important steps of presenting and debating other candidates, then allowing voters their choice.

This look into the machinations of The Clinton Foundation is not going to go away or be forgotten. It is serious and seriously creepy. Democrats? Independents? Who else can you show me?
David (Fairport)
One more thought or observation - Mrs. Clinton has advocated a 40% inheritance tax on the extremely wealthy. However, the Clinton's taking advantage of tax laws and a good tax lawyer have established a living trust for their monies which will shield it from inheritance taxes if and when they leave this earth.
Well, lets see. Theres no shortage of NGOs and charitable foundations doing the work the Clinton Foundation does too. Many of these foreign governments have their own aid agencies as well, and have been funding projects like these for years. So if they chose particularly to give to the Clinton Foundation, a relative newcomer to the field, its not wild speculation and mudslinging to surmise that they had particular motives for doing so. These were significant donations and not a couple of thousands of dollars just to say *we gave; don't call again..*

And now we hear that a foundation run by three lawyers connected to myriad other lawyers couldn't get its tax filings right? Donations from government entitites went from millions one year to zero the next, and the accountants at the time didn't say, hey, something not right here, lets check the figures again before submitting...

This is how you know you are dealing with people with, to be kind, serious personality disorders. The transgressions are so blatantly obvious. Its not clever deviousness. Its like a five-year-old hiding under the covers and thinking mommy cant see him.

The seriously out-of-whack can also be politicians who get meaningful things done. Nixon established the EPA and opened up relations with China. That took real guts for a Republican.

If were going to have a maladjusted president, that's the sort Id want. Not sex addicts and the women who rise to prominence by sticking with them...
Turgut Dincer (Chicago)
If the welfare of the American people and other people abroad depends on foundations like the Clinton foundation, we are in big trouble.
Gus (Agoura Hills)
Did the NY Times get bought out by Murdoch too? This article seems highly speculative and not worthy of a front page position. Having said that I don't think too many people are looking forward to another Bush-Clinton fight. Is that all we come to expect from a democratic country with over 300 million people? Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
Doodle (Fort Myers)
Besides the culpability of Secretary Clinton, I wonder that an ex-president of the United States was not concerned with Russia acquiring such key asset in our back yard or generally concerned with foreign entities influencing American interests via the foundation. What were the Clintons thinking?
ed (atlanta)
I guess there really is such a thing as being above the law. Any ordinary peasant would be buried in Federal prison long ago for what the Clinton's get away with almost daily. And there are actually people who would vote for her? What happened to the country I grew up in?
Kim (Claremont, Ca.)
This is what happens when you are no longer a democracy...The money & power run all the governments of the world! We used to somewhat thoughtful of the alliances, and obviously we should still be, because of the potential dire consequences. With no critical bipartisan checks in place, I fear for ourselves as a people and the world!!
weary traveller (USA)
We are ready for a "Madam president" yes .. we are not yet ready for a te person who will be more like the best republican candidate with big money and vested interests.

Its really time to come clean Hillary .. we are with you ..
I've read through this article, carefully, twice and it fails, starkly so, to establish, even minimally, ANY quid pro quo. That is the bottom line here.

The allegation, if not clearly stated, is nakedly implied, i.e. a foundation whose work to date has been above repute, was used as a conduit to a) personally enrich the Clintons in return for b) State Department sign-off on projects.

As we have seen in the past, in re the Clintons, the NY Times, WAPO, and outlets on down the stream, have engaged in this kind of sensationalistic *reporting* that appears to lay out a case against them. We saw that in Whitewater, FBI Files, right down to the laughable Death List.

Come back when you have some proof. If I want this kind of cr*p I can read the NY Post or watch Fox News.
traisea (Sebastian)
That this happened isn't surprising. That we still have an independent news organization that can report on it in detail is amazing. News like this is the thin line protecting what's left of the battered and dying democracy that we have. Democracy takes an educated electorate. Please continue reporting on major stories like these. As a Floridian... I'd love you to expose Rick Scott.
deancushman (valley village ca)
This stuff based on believing Schweizer's allegations when the author the book and is contents are being contested? The Times is already getting flaked for its reliance on material for it. I dunno, Editors.... take a third look, maybe before throwing another pie?
Em (California)
Two Questions:
Is there any chance that there was some agreement or understanding at the State Department to turn a blind eye to the deal in exchange for Russian support of the sanctions against Iran?

If Clinton did allow this deal to go through because of the donations to the foundation, how did she do it? Did she convince all the cabinet officials not to hold a meeting to discuss it? Does the Secretary of State decide what gets discussed? Or did she somehow just make sure that it went under the radar? And if that's what happened, aren't there other people who should have caught it?

Regardless, thank you for this great reporting.
Tommy Lee Maddox (Atlanta)
I can see a repeat coming:

"Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election."
Becca (Florida)
And this a surprise to anyone? As a registered independent I have few expectations, and realize the ILLUSION of our so called democracy. As David Byrne says, "This country points in two directions, and north and south are both the same. To survive we MUST, BULLDOZE K STREET, make lobbying illegal(it is bribery) and CLEAN UP OUR DIRTY SYSTEM both here and abroad. WE lowly taxpayers SHOULD STOP PAYING OUR FED. INCOME TAX, and hit the streets. It's been decades since we've had any representation.
Robert Dana (NY 11937)
It is interesting that those who support Hillary Clinton in these comments downplay the revelation of this article; and, if true, the effect the huge contributions to the Clintons' charity could have had on public policy through Mrs. Clinton, the then Secretary of State.

Yet when a story is reported about, say, the Koch Brothers' legal contributions, these same commenters cry "bloody murder", condemn the Roberts Court for "Citizens United" and demand immediate reform and the amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A quid pro quo is assumed by these folks. As it should be, because that's the way these things work.
JoeJohn (Asheville)
There seems to be no rising tide of integrity in the Republican ranks. There seem to be indications, publicized daily it seems in the NYT, that rank and file Democrats are accepting Clinton as the flawed but inevitable candidate of their party. So it is that I send out this hope, request, prayer that Elizabeth Warren to run.
sgrAstar (Somewhere near the center of the Milky Way)
The NYT has entered into an arrangement with Hoover Institute hack Peter Schweitzer to promote his anti-Clinton book, "Clinton Cash." A close read of this first installment in the enterprise reveals nothing but handwaving and supposition. Where is your journalistic integrity, NYT? This is all too reminiscent of your reporting during the last Clinton presidency, when you kept the smear campaign known as Whitewater on the front page, for years. So disappointing!
GMooG (LA)
I think a psychiatrist would say that you are "in denial."
Christian (NYC)
In the context of the 'reset', what message would stopping this deal send? I would also add that the state department pushed for GLONASS terrestrial stations on US soil in spite of national security issues, so this does have some precedent.

I would also add that our resistance to foreign owned entities sounds more like xenophobia than a true national security issue. If diplomatic relations deteriorated with a country owning US assets, nationalizing those assets would not be difficult or without precedent.
A Guy (Lower Manhattan)
You're right that the pros and cons of the deal could be debated, but it isn't just the deal that matters. It's the millions of dollars going to the Clinton Foundation at the same time that matter.

Whether or not that money influenced the outcome of the deal, we will probably never know, but the perception of wrongdoing is crystal clear.
Tim C (Hartford, CT)
Drip....drip...drip. The base is eroding. The emerging fear is that if the Clintons could be so oblivious to the political fallout from deleted email servers and undisclosed contributions, what else could be "out there" waiting to emerge in the closing weeks of a presidential campaign.

It's not the baggage we know about... it's that there's just so much potential baggage.
DOS (Philadelphia)
This reminds me a lot of the NYT's story during the 2008 campaign about McCain's friendship with a female lobbyist and how it represented a departure from McCain's usual practice of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Like that story, it's a complex picture of a complex situation that is more about how the way that the circulation of our impressions about politicians shapes the political process than about what a given candidate has done.

And like that story, it's being drastically compressed and simplified into an empty attack line by people who don't actually understand it, left and right.

Some people, it seems, think that the political process is best understood as a series of blaringly obvious headlines--and don't feel any need to read the fine print.
martin (manomet)
Does none of this bother our leaders in Congress? Or is this to complicated, and beyond the average citizens grasp. I would suggest that this type of deal would never happen under the watchful eye of any other Administration. Possibly this is just one of the things that Obama was whispering about when he said that he would be able to do a lot more after the elections. It certainly seems that Russia has overtaken, and passed the United States as the World's leader, and most powerful Country.
Marie-Florence Shadlen (Summerville, SC)
What if Obama had whispered to the Iranians: "I can do more after the midterm elections." I see nothing wrong with that. It's just sensible politics.

The republican obstructionism and hystrionics (Tom Cotton anyone?) would have cranked up to 110% with hopes for a lopsided victory during the midterms. Just "you didn't build that" is endlessly maligned out of context, so has "I can do more after the election." These statements may sound deceptive but are arguably examples when Obama was being honest.

Corporations can't build without roads, electricity, potable water, police and fire departments. This is a justification for corporations to play their share of taxes.
The Iran multilateral nuclear would have been scuttled and sabotaged and candidates would be tripping over each other to deliver on campaign money or deliver to special conspiracies. Obama could not have made this play before the final quarter.
JoeJohn (Asheville)
Deception and corruption are the themes of the careers of Clintons.
IfUAskedAManFromMars (Washington DC)
The last president to not-trade on his office was Jimmy Carter, and look what happened to him....
Sadly, I think it's probably time for us all to start practicing how to say "Vice President Walker" without gagging.
Citizen Kane (Orange California)
The paranoia of Nixon, the elitist 1% wealth of Romney, the Common man touch of Woodrow Wilson, the accomplishments of Jimmy Carter, the arrogance of Bobby Knight, the sense of humility of Lady GaGa, and the political skills of a college freshman running for Campus President.
You Dem sold your future about as easily as Hillary and Bill sold their souls and America. I never thought Id live to see a Mondalian Style thrashing that Hillary will witness in 2016...and it will be a thrashing, bank on it.
G. (Garcia)
Hey all, the key is how long this news cycle will last as the hostage killings knocks this off the front page headline and secondary on news channels. For those jumping up and down, this is politics and the repubs would do it as well in 2 seconds flat.

Only time will tell what shakes out and am glad the "stories" are coming out now. But darn, the people behind these are so partisan, you can't pretend it isn't suspect. But you know what, that's politics. ;)
pjt (Delmar, NY)
Clintons, Russia, Uranium and National Security implications: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
That Oded Yinon Plan (Washington, D.C.)
Hillary's cronyism is pretty amazing, even relative to other politicians whose political cronyism shocked the conscience - like that of her husband.

I can understand people voting for a candidate because s/he is better, at least, than all the others - but I think in this case, in 2016, if you vote for any of the 2 party candidates - you are nothing but part of the problem.
jeff f (Sacramento, Ca)
And our choice is? Not to vote, vote for someone who can't win?
aaron (wa)
Us democrats don't need a plan b. Hillary is crushing all of the right wingers in the polls by DOUBLE DIGITS. The radical GOP know they're GONERS in 2016. It's all about the electoral college math and Hillary has a MUCH EASIER PATH to 270 electoral votes than ANY right winger.
Maura (Maine)
Stories like this may change that.
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
Just like when her name was mentioned during the last election.
PE (Seattle, WA)
I hope the Clinton's are able to put doubt behind them and win the trust of the American people. If not we could be stuck with Jeb Bush--Jeb Bush!--as our next president.
patricia (bakersfield)
"What difference does it make now anyway."
Rhea Goldman (Sylmar, CA)
The NY Times has for years known (haven't we all) that Hillary Clinton would run for President. How timely that this investigative article be published (riding a wave) now. Coincidence? I hardly think so. Now I wait patiently for the other shoe to drop. What would that be you ask. It will be a thorough and thoughtful and oh so bittersweet editorial endorsement (sung to the tune of 'I Love You, I Loo-ve You") of a Republican (whichever) candidate for President of the USofA. Think not? Watch closely.

RYR Goldman/Sylmar 4/23/15
simon el xul (argentina)
What is confirmed here is that the Clintons are a couple of sleazy politicians.This does not speak well of the presidency of the United States
Gene 99 (Lido Beach, NY)
Go back about 100 years, substitute Albert Bacon for Hilary Clinton, and Sinclair Oil for Uranium One, and it reads eerily similar. They called that scandal Teapot Dome. Wonder what they'll call this one?
Melvin (North Carolina)
Corruption is rife within our system of governance. Corruption is embraced as an old friend in both political parties. Corruption purposely creates division, fear, and uncertainty of the future.
The Clinton's and their cronies have financially benefited in ways that would put a mere mortal in chains for many, many years. Bill, Hillary, and now Chelsea feel that they are above the law, and are not afraid to openly flout it.
So is there a way to curtail this madness?
There is but do the masses have the will and the courage to say, "Stop."
Harry B. Turner (Baltimore)
The Clintons still seem as smarmy as they did in the Rose Law Firm/Whitewater days. Please Democrats, give us an Elizabeth Warren or a James Webb.
Wendell Murray (Kennett Square PA USA)
More than possible, but still too early to tell which Democratic candidates might gain sufficient traction to upset Mrs. Clinton's quest, as Mr. Obama did leading to the 2008 election.

This article outlines the reasons why many people who normally vote for Democratic candidates do not support Mrs. Clinton in her quadrennial attempt at self-coronation. It also is illustration of why the creation and use of an e-mail server (physical computer) and e-mail server software while doing official USA business as USA foreign affairs minister anger so many of those same people.

On the other hand, as Paul Krugman has intelligently pointed out recently, generic Democratic elected officials are vastly better for the welfare of the vast majority of the population than are Republican candidates. This includes Mrs. Clinton, although most would greatly prefer another Democratic candidate than she.
James (St. Paul, MN.)
Whether or not she has broken any laws or acted contrary to our national interests, Ms. Clinton has a history of secretly collecting as much money and power for herself as possible without any regard for how her behavior might appear to the average working man or woman. I simply cannot understand why anybody considers her the best possible Democratic candidate, when she is so willfully blind to the way her behavior appears to others. Not Presidential in any way, shape or form.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Many "charitable foundations" are really patronage empires.
John (Ohio)
"A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: 'Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?'”

Former president and spouse -- who hopes to become future president -- set up foundation accepting 7- and 8-digit donations from corporations and foreign governments hoping to influence a supposed future administration.

This is exactly why we need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would serve as a companion to the 22nd Amendment (term limit for president) by barring close relatives (spouse, children, parents, siblings) from serving as president or vice-president for a lengthy period, say 30 years, after a president's term of office ends. Also exclude a former president from serving as vice president.
Linda Palik McCann (San Antonio, Texas)
Rupert Murdoch has conspired to worm his way into the NY Times, or so rumor has it. No connection has yet been definitively established, but lack of evidence in the Clinton Foundation reportage is strongly suggestive of a hostile takeover.

Facts will be disseminated once they are manufactured. The public should be advised as to their radioactivity. Innuendo is pleasingly dangerous and exciting. The clever Fox leads us on a rumor chase while the uranium safely cached in his lair will never be unearthed.
Maura (Maine)
Murdock has been a supporter of Hillary Clinton. He actually fundraised for her senatorial campaign.
Tess Harding (The New York Globe)
Hail to the thieves!
Let's not make the same mistake twice.
Richard (Wynnewood PA)
It seems unlikely that Hillary would have gotten involved in the decision to approve Russian control of US uranium resources. However, she was probably at least copied on State Department emails relating to the issue because, as Secretary of State, she was the Department's representative on COFIUS and also because of her commitments relating to the Clinton Foundation. Let's hope that her emails shed light on the issue -- assuming they weren't part of the self-designated "personal" emails that were destroyed. In any case, there is an appearance of conflicts of interest that should have been avoided.
Edward Hershey (Portland, Oregon)
Hilary Clinton talks like a Democrat and plays like a Republican.
Bill Krause (Great Neck, NY)
Oh, lord, here comes the anti-Clinton yellow journalism again.

"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."

The ridiculous tenuousness of the "connection" speaks for itself. Clinton spoke at a bank. The bank is linked to the government. The government also promotes an entirely distinct business. Why would this make it into print? It seems like the product of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

"Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer,"

Don (Washington, DC)
Let me put it in terms that will make it all clear to you: "Mr. Walker received $500,000 for a speech from an investment bank controlled by the Koch Brothers which was promoting their efforts to corner the global market on oil."

I'm guessing you would understand why that story wasn't 'yellow journalism.' By refusing to recognize squalid behavior except when it is practiced by your political enemies, you insure it will never end.
AmericanRealityCheck (Montana)
We should all be glad that the Russians haven't cornered the market on sand. From many of the comments here, we are going to need a lot more than we have so all Clinton supporters have somwhere to bury their heads. We all know the old saying, "There's no such thing as coincidence." There is, but not when put in this very intricate context. What this now means is that many Democrats that haven't considered getting into the presidential race will now start to give that serious thought. Warren will probably rethink her decision. It probably is the best thing for the Democratic Party as well as the United States of America.
Dr. Bob (Wyomissing)
Such bums
Bob Garcia (Miami)
I think Rosatom and Uranium One just believe in funding good works and good government -- similar to what the Koch brothers, Adelson, and assorted bankers and hedge fund managers believe. I'm sure they would never expect a quid pro quo.
Bill Burke (New York USA)
Another scandal for the Clintons. This looks criminal and violates the full disclosure rules. Time for Democrats to dump Hillary and look elsewhere before it's too late. Too tainted for office.
Joseph C Bickford (North Carolina)
Oh, how I wish we Democrats had not allowed Mrs. Clinton to be the assumed nominee. I do not think she is a competent campaigner and she lacks a real record of accomplishment and because, fairly or not, she comes under a cloud and with lots of baggage. Perhaps there is still time for somebody else. We cannot cede so important an election to the Republicans who are simply the worst of their party in a very long time. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren will step up and my Party will wise up to Mrs. Clinton.
Tess Harding (The New York Globe)
The day Bill and Hillary realize that they are not national treasures, but national disgraces, will indeed be a cause for rejoicing throughout our land.
crainsny (Chapel Hill)
So was anything on her server that mentioned the Clinton Foundation or it's activities considered "personal?"
Kate Woodward (Oregon)
My thoughts exactly.
Steve Austin (Hopkinsville KY)
This certainly doesn't look good. It DOES tell us why Ms. Clinton had NO intention EVER to use a government email system - she knew going in that she would be charging nations and people a fee to let them do business overseen by the state Department.

When previous politicians charged pay-to-play fees like this, the going rate was roughly one-tenth of one percent, so that a billion in profits would accrue a million to the politician. I haven't seen data yet to see if Hillary and Bill stuck to this rate or not.

Bill was making appearances in countries just as Hillary was going around with her purse open for checks. There is a Pulitzer Prize - if not a bunch - for those reporters willing to be on Hillary's dead-cat list.
Brown Dog (California)
Ahh yes. We have the best two-party system money can buy.
bl (rochester)
I am very surprised that there is no mention of any internal
State Dept. documents pertaining to any of the sale machinations
that should have been obtainable by a Freedom of Information
request. As a result, it is not really possible to evaluate the
extent to which one side or the other is bending the truth
to push one agenda or another.

It seems evident that for a story of this importance, all
available sources of information should have been tracked
down and used. The reference to what the authors used, that is,

"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."

is too vague to be taken at face value. The paper trail
actually used needs precision. Interviews do not seem
at all sufficient since the nature of the story involves
influence peddling at high government levels. I would want
to know more than what "he said" based information.

This is one story among many that
are going to surface between now and November 2016 and
it is going to be full of hidden agendas and axe grinding
in what gets said or written. So, it is crucial for
the paper and email trails of evidence to be spelled out as clearly
as possible.
Matt (New York, NY)
Haven't we had enough of the Clintons already? I wish the Democrats could come up with a viable alternative to Hillary, i.e. somebody who could actually win the presidency. At the end of the day, I would vote for Hillary over any Republican (I fear the Republicans more than I do ISIS) but I would do so holding my nose.
Charles Wolf (New York, NY)
I commend the New York Times, a paper with strong Democratic editorial leanings, for publishing this story. People will take from it what they will.

Personally, I don't want a president who will maneuver their actions while in office to make sure it's going to be good for them, rather than what's good for their constituents (as senator), their department (State), or possibly as president. I saw enough of that in my dealings with Mrs. Clinton as a post-9/11 activist when she was my senator. Charming, yes. Appears to be there to help, yes. But not without a calculated delay to make sure the political winds were blowing in the direction she wanted them to blow.

Regarding the publishing of this article, I was surprised to see that the story was not published in the print version of today's (April 23) New York Times. I hope it will appear in print in the days to come. All NYT readers need to be exposed to this story. The public needs to know all about Mrs. Clinton BEFORE being elected rather than after.
Patrick O'Loughlin (Madison, WI)
"...for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. "

Really? Isn't the mere appearance of impropriety enough to tell you they (the Clintons) shouldn't have been doing this?
Paul (White Plains)
Is anyone really surprised by this? When will mind numbed Clinton fans realize that these two are not nice people. They are more greedy, more secretive, more power hungry and more self centered than any of the Republican politicians that Democrats love to excoriate. Vote for Hillary Clinton and you are voting for more of the same.
Michael and Linda (San Luis Obispo, CA)
It feels like Whitewater and the other manufactured scandals all over again, with even more money and a better propaganda machine behind them. I don't doubt that there will be other books over the course of the campaign, each well financed by Reoublican donors and supporting whatever meme about Hillary Clinton the right feels will energize its base and discourage Democrats from voting. We need to see the strategy for what it is and fight the urge to buy into it.
Don (Washington, DC)
Nothing has changed since Tyson Foods executives agreed to funnel $100,000 into an account controlled by Hillary Clinton in exchange for energetic protection by the governor-elect using the flimsy dodge of commodities trades; nothing except the size of the checks and the consequences of the favors.

I am a registered Democrat but the idea of eight more years of Clinton-style morality makes me nauseous. Is this the best our party can do? If so, at least never mention the Koch Brothers and the insidiousness of Republican political spending again.
The Clinton Foundation is the modern equal of Tammany Hall. Like all corrupt enterprises, they front a wholesome image, in fact doing good for a great many, while behind the scenes they skim money for personal and political gain. Regardless of where your politics fall on the ideologic spectrum, this type of clandestine corruption must come to an end. There are simply too many "smoking guns" over the decades to believe that Mrs. Clinton is somehow uninvolved in all of these actions. To believe otherwise stretches credibility to the breaking point. She should not be the next president. Surely, the Democratic Party has more respectable options who, regardless of ideology, are at least persons of some integrity. The Clintons clearly are not those persons.
crainsny (Chapel Hill)
Kind of puts questions about what did or did not make the cut from Hillary's server into a new light.

I would wager that anything related to the Clinton Foundation were deleted.
Chris Irvine (New York)
Sadly, this article about the Clinton's dealings is neither shocking or surprising to me. I'm a Democrat and I used to be a card carrying zealous proponent of McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform. I've handed out flyers and gone door-to-door as that intense battle to pass the bill was at its height. I used to chafe at the notion "money always finds a way" in politics and, therefore, trying to set limits on campaign donations was counterproductive. However, over the years, I've changed my mind and have come to at least partly agree with that money always finds a way in politics and that over regulation leads to terrible and crippling corruption. The evidence is powerful. Again and again we see campaign contributions being funneled into third party "charities" like the Clinton Foundation. Few donate with only altruism in mind. It seems to me the nation has two choices-deregulate campaign donations with the stipulation that all donations are made directly and are open to public scrutiny. The other choice is to have a strict publicly funded campaign finance system where candidates are only allowed to use public funds. There is no way to make the current broken system work with some type of incremental fix. It's time to face facts-our well intentioned campaign finance laws have led to serious corruption problems that are only getting worse. It's time for a complete head-to-toe review of our campaign finance laws and a debate on how to move forward.
Peter C (Bear Territory)
The Clinton Foundation glows in the dark
Paul Waibel (Mississippi)
The idea that we citizens actually control things is an illusion. It always has been, and always will be. I think of it as something like this. We are on board a ship at sea. The owners of the ship have hired a captain to chart a course to the destination they have chosen. We unfortunate souls on board the ship may complain about the food being serve up in the galley, or we may complain about the sleeping arrangements. We may even be able, if we try hard enough and are willing to take the risks, to obtain some improvements in those areas. But we have no control over the destination or the course the ship is sailing. I don't doubt that the Clintons and the Bushes are, like all the others before them and those who will follow them, bought and paid for by wealthy interests who view the rest of us as disposable property. However, even on slave ships, some captains were more "human" than others. I think the common person gets a better measure of justice under a liberal than today's conservatives. Today's conservatives allow us only the crumbs that fall on the floor. The liberal will occasionally throw a crumb or two on the floor. When we compare the Clinton administration with that of either Bush, or even Ronald Reagan, it is obvious that Hillary is the better choice. Better to have Machiavelli's amoral prince than Eric Hoffer's true believer. As C.S. Lewis said, it is better to be tortured by a sadist than one who believes he hears the voice of God whispering in his ear.
T.L.Moran (Idaho)
Looks like the NYT is either insanely anti-Hillary, or colossally lazy ... or both.

The paper waits for the cash-flush, rabidly anti-Democrat Hoover Institution to dig up dirt on the Clintons, and then turns it into their front-page story.

Tell me, NYT, when are you going to dig up the same anything-for-money, cash-for-power, pay-for-play dirt on the GOP candidates who share the same history of brokering corporate deals for campaign cash, of using the Caymans and dubious SCOTUS cases to launder the soiled trails of influence?

Oh right -- you missed all that with Halliburton, Cheney, et al. With Romney and his shady church-sheltered trusts. With the countless multi-millionaire Congressmen daily taking payments to do the work of their fellow rich.

You don't bother doing the work when -- well, when it would require NYT work, rather than simply serving as a mouthpiece for GOP attacks.

Maybe you just don't have the money; I know it takes huge amounts of money to track the path of huge amounts of money.

But maybe you also don't have the courage, or the integrity, to take on the GOP.
Arnie (Jersey)
Wait these are the people who condemned Romney for his self made fortune, and not releasing his tax return and the Clinton's pocketed $ from of all countries, Russia. I'm a conservative, but if I was, due to misfortune, a liberal, I'm done with Hillary.
J C Wheel (Atlanta)
The Clintons would be wise to take some serious deep breaths, and remove themselves from politics. They are in the process of ruining a more positive image Bill has created for himself since leaving office.

Hillary continues to dig a deeper WELL (not hole, but WELL) for herself.
1) She cannot run on her records as Sec of State. She has left US foreign policy in shambles.
2) She misspeaks, or avoids the press.
3) There is a growing and lingering MISTRUST factor with her on every topic she attempts to address.
4) Her 'likeability' factor is growing, especially with younger voters.
5) Benghazi, Emails, Server, Clinton Foundation, and 'pay to play'???

For many who once thought they knew Hillary, are now asking themselves the question: WHO IS SHE? HOW CAN I EVER TRUST HER?
casher2 (USA)
I was once, many years ago, a lowly contracts negotiator for DOD. If as little as $100 went from a government contractor to me or a family member, or any entity that could even appear to have influenced one of my decisions, I would have certainly been fired and possibly criminally prosecuted.
A defense that the money did not affect my decision making would have been dismissed as irrelevant. The mere appearance of wrongdoing would be enough.
The Clintons are the definition of sleaze and privilege.
blackmamba (IL)
"Born in the USA!" Bruce Springsteen

"Living in America! " James Brown

America is the epitome of sleaze and privilege. From hopeless Hope Arkansas to hopeful New York and D.C.

"I am shocked. Round up the usual suspects""
Robert Weller (Denver)
You were the only one in the Pentagon not profiting from the Vietnam War and Cold War. Read "The Kill Chain." Hundreds of billions, if not trillions, were wasted and hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
Sandy Reiburn (Ft Greene, NY)
We're so used to the disparaging remarks and even lies about Hillary and Bill Clinton coming from self-serving GOP and conservative groups and media, that I mostly chalk up to the dirty business of politics as usual.

But to read about the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation which were "unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” and implemented by the NY Times is a betrayal of my faith in them and a harsh awakening for me as a (now former!) stalwart supporter.

I'm very disgusted.
Phoebe (St. Petersburg)
Honestly, compared to the Tea Party politicians financed by KOCH money, this is small peanuts. Further, this money is used to doing good, whereas the KOCH money is used to make the 1% even richer by buying political cloud.

Also, I don't quite see how Hillary is responsible for the doings of her husband.
Adirondax (mid-state New York)
Anyone who doesn't think the world works this way - meaning "donations" to foundations equals potential influence, doesn't understand lobbying. In the Clinton's case their charitable foundation is a nice shroud over their political activities.

When you employ a lobbyist the contract he offers up is simply this: "I can give you access to my friends, who are very powerful and can help you in unique ways that will be profitable to you."

Do the friends of the Clintons end up getting deals done they might not have otherwise? Does the sun rise in the East?

'Twas ever thus.
Juan Archer (Atlanta)
****************** Flashback Omen ***************************
Remember the Clinton State Dept, reset button, Faux Pa?
The sticker on the button actually translated to, 'OVERCHARGED' in Russian when Hillary presented it to the them back in 2009.

Lets face it. The Clinton foundation exists to enrich the Clintons. Ready to take a buck but never earn a buck. As a tax exempt foundation, they avoid many taxes, launder money structured to pay Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea huge salaries while receiving huge speaking fees along with perks and lifestyles of the rich and famous, travel expense accounts, the whole thing is a farce. The Clinton's have used their celebrity status and Washington power to bring in millions from governments where human rights are non existent. Shameless ....but its more of the same from the Clintons.

Unfortunately - In the end, many Democrats and Libs worship the Clintons and don't care what they do or don't do.
Mathew Carniol (New York)
It's obviously over for Hillary, as well it should be, and possibly for any democrat in 2016.
ComradeAnon (Marietta, GA)
Some of the worst reporting I've ever seen. How many organizations in total had to sign off on this? And Clinton controls them all?

Is this the liberal media?
Cindy (Stuart, Fl)
It just seems like the Clintons are always trying to dodge these sinkholes that keep opening up around them. She's on a "listening tour" alright..with her ear to the ground, waiting for cracking sounds.
Ken (NYC)
Quiet down lets not call a spade a spade, let the fun continue. As someone who thinks the last 6 years have been abominable, I hope that the next DalaiMama of the left gets crowned Queen of the Democratic Party.
Truth be told most voters are too busy watching Jerry Springer to notice things like a few Clinton's lining their pockets with Dirty Uranium, money so why try and wake them up. Full speed ahead madam President.
We maybe able to fix the last 6 years after all.
David Richman (N. Woodmere)
If this article is a byproduct of the arrangement between the Times and Peter Schweitzer, author of "Clinton Cash", as I suspect, then serious questions need to be raised and answered about the accuracy of the reporting and the "facts" upon which it is based. I am not necessarily a fan of Hillary Clinton but I'm also not a fan of cloaking a political partisan with an aura of credibility simply for the sake of access and being "first to the story". We saw that with Judith Miller's reporting on the run up to Iraq. The Times embracing a false story then hardly served the nation then. We need to be equally careful now.
Larry (Morris County, New Jersey)
I thought the same upon seeing this story today and having read the Times' note yesterday about how they (along with Fox News) were collaborating with the GOP partisan who writes for Breitbart. Then, reading the story here today and seeing it full of typical partisan innuendo and little else, I'm thinking the Times should consider an apology for participating in the collaboration with Schweitzer. Shame on the New York Times. We trust her and she occasionally betrays that trust (as with her collaboration with GWB in pushing for a war on Iraq that will forever be one of America's greatest strategic errors.
Robert Dana (NY 11937)
I suppose we now know why those emails disappeared.
Matt Andersson (Chicago)
Uranium is also interestingly, one of the key strategic interests driving US/UK-Russian contention in Ukraine, which is rather rich in this and other natural resources.

As for the "Foundation," it merely reflects a much larger fungible network of interests and transfers: Foundation and its sponsors are insiders--and the public, outsiders. If one were to map such activities globally, the insight and repulse would be surpassed only by the comedy.
blackmamba (IL)
You are confusing the Clinton Foundation with the United States Congress and the White House.

Ukraine was the grain breadbasket of the former Soviet Union. Kiev is a capital for corrupt crony capitalist plutocrat oligarchs just like Moscow.

Neither Russia nor America need any uranium for their nuclear arsenals nor nuclear power. India does and is buying uranium from Australia. Israel?

We can not count on Gray Ghost Confederate Colonel Cornpone Harold Watson Gowdy III to uncover the truth. Trey has yet to get over his side losing the War of Northern Aggression against a state's right to have human slavery.
Scot (Seattle)
I'm so tired of and skeptical of these attacks on Clinton that I no longer hear them. How many hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars have been spent by conservatives trying to undermine the Clintons over 20 years? I'm quite sure the upcoming book will spend more time being talked about than being read, but the author will pocket a tidy sum for his creative efforts, happily paid out by the same billionaires funding the candidacies of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush.

Hilary Clinton is not perfect, but none of the candidates is. I am convinced that her claim of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" 20 year ago was and continues to be precisely true, and every such story represents another $10 million fishing expedition. Conservatives should be embarrassed by the porcine visual with their frenzied snuffling in the mud for more evidence to finally prove Clinton evildoing.

I wonder how many "scandal-gates" we'll christen and then forget in the next year. At one time I would have considered a conservative candidate. At this point I consider the entire party permanently slimed.
uffdaron (oneida)
It's all "A vast right wing conspiracy". yadda yadda yadda.. in infinitum

At least America's 2 most profane liars are married to each other. Hopefully the next election will be their waterloo/.... good riddance to the most shameful couple in public life.
AmericanRealityCheck (Montana)
This is truly a sad commentary. Its clear that many would give Hillary Clinton a pass on any action she or her husband takes. Given the severity of these accusations, the government should announce a special prosecutor to look into the allegations.
Jaybird248 (Florida)
The story clearly states that a number of agencies had to sign off on this deal, that it happened at a time we were trying to build contacts with Russia, and that no uranium can go to Russia without an export license. There is no proof at all that the Clintons made this happen, though undoubtedly the Russians and Canadians were pushing every lever, including trying to buy the Clintons, to get the deal through. (Gee, rich folks giving money to politicians to get favors, wow, that's news!) Nevertheless, the story contains three words (Clintons, Russia, Uranium) that the GOP will link in 30 second ads to accuse Hillary of everything short of treason. I just hope The Times and other media can make clear that the actions of the Clintons are not about to unleash a nuclear holocaust against our nation. Sheesh!
Don (USA)
Hillary's philosophy can best be summed up as follows:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

The rules and laws simply don't apply to her.
Roberto (Maryland)
Bill+Hill = Greed+Corruption. Where's Thomas Nast when you need him?
Ken Russell (NY)
One can barely grasp the power, influence and control the Clintons must have over the administrations of both Russia and the US (encompassing both political parties) as well as the stock markets and energy sectors to be behind this whole scheme...

Truly Amazing!
Walker (New York)
A thoughtful observer might have concerns that control of significant U.S. -based, strategic uranium deposits has passed to foreign interests, notably Russia. Uranium, of course, is a key fuel component for nuclear reactors, and also used to manufacture weapons for the U.S. military.

The New York Times presents persuasive arguments that Clinton financial interests were rewarded through their involvement and support of key players in this scenario. Wholly apart from the dark cloud of impropriety which hangs over this affair, there is the small matter of U.S. securities regulations.

If the Clintons are facilitating transactions involving the sale or transfer of corporate securities, in this or other comparable situations, they should be subject to the same regulations and oversight which govern securities firms. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission might wish to make appropriate inquiries into the Clinton's roles in these transactions.
Xavier (Unterfoehring, Germany)
The so called charitable organization, is not charitable at all, that is only a
trick, to make look like that, but in reality is money, for the exclusive use
and luxury lives of the Clintons.
Bill Clinton, has been involved in many, many doubtful businesses, for his
exclusive political and financial advantage, even from the time when, he was Akansas Governor, and these undertakings, along with another facts, in which
his political enemies, and detractors have "committed suicides" in very
doubtful circumstances, has never been investigated beyond a reasonable
doubt, provided that he is a compulsive liar, as proven in the Monika Levinsky
affair (I never, ever, had sexual relations with this woman).!!
OswaldSnide (Woodbine, MD)
I read this article with my morning coffee -- and with great dismay. Who can predict how such reports will affect Hillary's chances at the presidency? My guess is that it may be the last straw. (There have been too many straws of late.) In any event: it's time for me to suspend my personal support. I say "suspend": perhaps this story will prove, as some insist, and I hope, to be merely, or mostly, a right-wing smear. But I doubt it. The Times is not in the habit of jumping onto such bandwagons without extreme diligence.
gastonb (vancover)
The Clinton Foundation has been flawed from its start. Put aside the fancy philanthropic language and it has been about influence-peddling and maintaining the Clinton election machine. The Foundation's reporting of finances as required on IRS form 990 has been revised and refiled numerous times - as reported in the Reuters stories today, even authorities on charity finances are questioning why such as big rich foundation can't seem to file its forms correctly. And the mistakes all seem to be around the lists of donors. Hmmmm.

The Clintons have, as usual, shot themselves in their own feet. Is it that both Hill & Bill so firmly believe that they are always right, and can do no wrong? Is it their crowd of friends who they keep relying on for advice, and who seem to be as stumbling as ever in reading the public's attitudes? I guess all I can ask for now is that the same good investigative reporting be turned to the Cruz, Rubio, Walker - and definitely the Bush! - campaigns and personal finances. My feeling about the coming presidential election is that the candidates should all be put in a 'Whack-a-Mole' box and let the public have at 'em.
peter (west palm beach florida)
It always amazes me how DEMS ignore Clinton corruption when the NY Times give the facts.How Howard Dean and James Carville can look in a mirror is amazing.Do we have enough grounds for Impeachment before her coronation?
John Burke (NYC)
None of this should surprise anyone. Foundations like Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates and dozens of others exist to give away their own money -- endowments from benefactors. The "Clinton Foundation" exists to give away other people's money, in the process enriching the Clintons and their hangers-on and allowing the Clintons to take political credit for the "foundation's" gifts. There is not a shred of a reason why any wealthy individual, company or foreign government donates money to this scam except to curry favor with the Clintons as they wield political and governmental influence. It's a disgrace.
Nicole (Oregon)
There are millions of patients living with HIV who beg to differ with you.
uffdaron (oneida)
We're discussing individuals who have either been a president or want to be. How do your examples compare to the Clinton's shameful duplicity and traitorious money laundering???
jdlee (Wethersfield, Connecticut)
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown." Seems to me this is the Key sentence in the piece which means the rest if just speculation. Sounds like the "breathless" reporting on Faux (Fox) News followed by the inevitable "I'm just saying".
Wanda Wonderlust (San Francisco)
Notice how he says "not a shred of evidence", not that it didn't happen. Typical corrupt liberal. When are you liberals who vote only on party lines going to wake up? Wonder what you folks will be telling your grandchildren when you are huddled around with no food talking about the "good old days".
Charles (NYC)
The Clintons have gone one up on the aphorism "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". They are showing that their Foundation is the last refuge. Britain has shadow governments to shelter political power players' interregnum. We have the Clinton Foundation. Am espcially concerned for Chelsea, who instead of getting a life, has voluntarily dived into the cesspool.
Kimbo (NJ)
This woman and her husband are crooks. They are full of double-speak and deception. It is not just one instance. Go all the way back to Arkansas. There is a long repeated history of it. Don't be a Democrat or a Republican on this one...
These people need to get out of American politics. Enough of them. Are there no more progressive, young, educated, concerned, TRUTHFUL people left in politics...BOTH sides of the aisle?
MrReasonable (Columbus, OH)
It is well past time for a special prosecutor to be named to investigate Hillary and the Foundation. Now we know why she was so adament about deleting and destroying her "personal" emails. She needed to hide not only the facts around Benghazi, but even more importantly, the dirty deals she was making through her foundation to enrich herself and her family.
anne (Boston)
Appreciate the details. So in the end its: "But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation".

wow, what a bombshell.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
Hello, Hillary. This is worthless speech because I get paid nothing for it because I'm an ordinary person.
JoyceK (North Carolina)
The author of "Clinton Cash". Peter Schweitzer. is also the author of "Architects of Ruin, How Gig Government Liberals Ruined the Global Economy and Will Do It Again if We Don't Stop Them" and "Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less . . . and even hug their children more than liberals."
The fact that a right wing propagandist would publish an "expose" on Hillary Clinton is to be expected.
Lots of innuendo here.
gw (usa)
Maybe some Democrats haven't hit tilt with the Clintons yet, but you can bet independent voters would by the general election. The stakes are too high to stay on this sinking ship. Please encourage Elizabeth Warren to run:
Dotconnector (New York)
The late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an authentic New Yorker, a true statesman if there ever was one and Mrs. Clinton's esteemed predecessor in the United States Senate, coined the phrase "defining deviancy down." In other words, the normalizing of previously stigmatizing behavior.

What brings it to mind is that the steady drip, drip, drip of shady goings-on surrounding Inevitability 2016 carries the risk of anesthetizing us to such an extent -- and resetting the ethical bar so low -- that the reaction becomes "What else do you expect from the Clintons?"
florida len (florida)
I do not think that Hillary Clinton passes the "smell" test. That is, there is always a hint of wrong doing, or scandal. She has generally been 'teflon' coated and been able to brush it off as "just my political enemies going at it again".

Now we have this latest report which while not directly charging her with anything illegal yet, and as usual she is defending herself by pointing to others doing her bidding without her knowledge. Just like Bengazi and all other scandals, "not me, my subordinates did it". How many times can she use this excuse before the electorate catches on?

The sad part is that if this was a Republican candidate, the media including the NY Times would be all over them demanding his/her withdrawal.

So, the question is, do we want someone like her without an impeccable background to be President? I think the answer is a resounding "NO" - there has to be other men and women much 'cleaner' within the Democratic ranks who pass the "smell" test with flying colors, that could run in 2016.
watchbird (Seattle, WA)
The problem is her husband.
Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma, (Jaipur, India.)
That means the Clintons facilitated uranium for cash deal with Russia did well precede what Obama did initiate much later with Iran to ink a nuclear deal for free. The forthcoming presidential elections in the US should really constitute a dangerous nuclear flash point in the known political history of presidential contests in the US.
Jim (WI)
The Clintons always have played by their own rules. Even auditing the Clinton foundation would get nowhere because the Clintons will rewrite what "is" charitable.
rtsatty (new haven, ct)
Does Hillary know how to spell conflict of interest?
Jerry (NY)
In the Washington Examiner, the shrewd political columnist Byron York points out that the Democratic field for the 2016 presidential race is more than a little gray around the gills:

There are five Democrats who have either declared or are thinking about running for president. Three — Joe Biden, Bernard Sanders, and Jim Webb — will be over 70 years old on Inauguration Day 2017. Frontrunner Hillary Clinton will be nine months short of 70. Only Martin O'Malley, who will turn 54 a couple of days before the 2017 swearing-in, has not reached retirement age already.

What explains this last wheeze of the Boomers? York lets an anonymouse do the talking:

"It's the snuffing out of young talent by the strength and size and sheer velocity of the inevitable nominee," says a well-connected Democratic strategist. "The Clintons took all the air out of the collective Democratic room. There are a lot of people who would be running who are much younger, but they've got their future in front of them, and they don't want the Clintons to ruin it, in this campaign or after this campaign. So they're waiting for a moment when there is enough oxygen to run."

"If Hillary Clinton weren't running, we'd have a field that looks like the Republican field — young and vibrant and diverse."
The second paragraph is wishful thinking. One key reason why there aren't any attractive young Democratic candidates running is that there aren't many attractive young Democrats to choose from.
redandright (Louisiana)
That's what happens when you brook no dissent in the Party. Toe the Party Line or face expulsion.
Jesse Marioneaux (Port Neches)
Democrats please wake up before you hand the election to a Bush. This country can not afford this. Please Bernie Sanders run this country desperately needs you please.
Marylee (MA)
I cannot believe the NYT is in collaboration with this biased author. This is all innuendo and factless. Beyond disgusted. How about focusing on issues relevant to the majority of the American people?
borninkenya (San Diego)
Quite honestly the only thing surprising here is that this story made it into the NYT!
Rita (California)
Sure. And tomorrow there will be a story that The NYTimes has been sold to Rupert Murdoch.
Paul (Chicago)
I am no fan of the Clintons
But the Times using a right wing crony of the Bush/Cheney era as a source
sue (Cleveland)
Facts are facts regardless of who presents them.
reedroid1 (Asheville NC)
I keep waiting for the Times's special team assigned to investigate the Koch Brothers' unending, secret, billion-dollar control of the Republican party, and the in-depth reporting of Jeb Bush's decisions to invest billions of Florida funds with donors to George Bush's presidential campaigns. Isn't Amy Chozik or any of the other "get-Hillary" reporters going to bother with looking into the corruption on the right? Or is that "old news"?
jacobi (Nevada)
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

The need for a private server under the complete control of Ms. Clinton becomes clearer.
ejzim (21620)
You. Have.To. Be. Kidding. Me. Do the audit. We want to know about the under-the-table activities. Time for other candidates to step in.
Marshall Krantz (Oakland, CA)
Forget it, Jake. It's Bundghazi.
Walter Schlech MD, MACP, FRCPC (Halifax, NS Canada)
Draft John Kerry again - a veteran with a good record in the Senate and as Secretary of State. If Hilary is nominated I may have to hold my nose and vote for another Bush...
Nicole (Oregon)
Dear NYT Editors: I want back the ten minutes of my life that I just spent reading this story. You found...what? At this point the Clintons can be tied to anything, anywhere, by nearly any intern in a news room. This reeks of opportunistic yellow journalism. I'm waiting for an article on the millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation has saved for the governments of developing countries, the brilliant young people who work tirelessly for this Foundation thousands of miles from home for very little pay because they believe in it's mandate, and some good dirt about Jeb Bush. For now I'm rolling my eyes. Next time you'll lose a reader.
Matt Kkkkk (San Diego)
Is this really the best the Democrats can do? A woman of whom her own supporters cannot name a single accomplishment, married to a former lawyer who lost his law license for committing perjury? If this article came from a right-wing publication, the Hillary supporters would be labeling it as false. Coming from the NYT they have to, instead, dissemble and come up with excuses. There is no excuse; this report, coupled with the wiped-clean private emails, is going to sink Hillary Clinton. And she deserves it.
IndependentCandor (CA)
"Whether the donations played a role..."

You have got to be kidding! Does the NYT really believe the American people are that stupid? Of course they played a role.

One has to be incredibly stupid, deaf and blind, or a mindless left-wing dupe to believe there is no Clinton-cash-corruption connection. They may be "charming" but they're not honest nor fit to represent an honorable nation.

We deserve better.
Eagle (Durham)
Whether the donations played a role cannot be proven, but the NYT has constructed a narrative that leaves the reader with the understanding that the quid quo pro between Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been proven.
Steve Hunter (Seattle)
The NYT continues to work very hard to tarnish the image of Hillary Clinton whilst polishing the images of the the clowns in the GOP clown car. Something is rotten in Denmark.
Eric Thraymona (Minneapolis)
Frank and Claire Underwood never had it this good. Maybe next season..
Laura Hunt (here there and everywhere)
ANd yet with all of these stories surfacing about Hill and Company and the endless doubt where the Clinton's are concerned, look for a glowing endorsement by the Times for HRC and every other liberal media outlet.
Terry Donovan (Kc ks)
I think the Hillary is innocent and I hope she doesn't end her run for the Whitehouse. I'm a Registered Republican
Rose (New York)
Whether its relevant or not, it's worth noting that the largest independent charity evaluator, Charity Navigator, has the Clinton Foundation on their Watchlist. Their full disclaimer says this:
"We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model."
Further down on the Charity Navigator page for the Foundation, it explains the reason why the foundation has made it to their Watchlist:
"Charity Navigator, as an impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting information, takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist. However, given that our primary obligation is to donors, Charity Navigator has determined that the nature of this/these issue(s) warrants highlighting the information available so that donors are aware of the issues in question which may be relevant to their decision whether to contribute to this organization"
Rita (California)
So, in summary, "there are lots of allegations and we don't have time or staff to look into them.".

Looks like the easiest way to torpedo a person or an organization is to make up lots of stories and hope no one has the time to look at them.
Ana Espinosa (Napanoch, NY)
Perhaps this is the perfect moment to consider our choices in the next presidential election.
Do we want the Koch brothers picking our next president, or do we vote for someone who might do some good for the working class, or should I say working poor? I am not a fan of the Clintons, never have been, but better a good devil than a real one.
Is there a clean politician anywhere?
Run Elizabeth, run....
A Guy (Lower Manhattan)
There are more candidates out there than just the ones crammed down our throats courtesy of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Your mindset of voting for the lesser of two evils, which far too many people have, is part of the problem. There are other choices. You just need to find them because they generally don't have corporations lining their pockets with gold and therefore they lack the ability to get promoted on mainstream media 24/7.

If you want anything to change, I highly recommend you go find a third party candidate who means well and vote for them instead of perpetuating the current system by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is exactly what both evils want you to do. They're more than happy playing the long game and alternating which party happens to be less evil during any given election cycle.

Side Note: Do not expect your third party candidate to win. That doesn't matter. Opening up the race to more than two parties and making the Democrats and Republicans remember that the corporations paying them huge sums to gain influence (or to gain the hope of gaining influence) don't actually vote is what matters.
Laura Hunt (here there and everywhere)
Do we want Soros and company picking our next President?
Roy Brophy (Minneapolis, MN)
The blatant corruption of the Clinton and our whole "Ruling Class" should sicken enough Americans that we break away from the Corrupt Democrats and Republicans and form a new Party.
Senator Warren: Please call Home!
AJ (Burr Ridge, IL)
This is not good. This presidential run must be about clear messages and vision. Hillary will find that hard to do when most of her time is consumed, and believe me the Republicans will make certain that this is where she spends her debate time, attempting to untangle her husbands financial dealings. Just the fact that you have to address some form of financial sleaze is not what you want to talk about on auditorium stages. Hillary maybe be inevitable, but the steady drip, drip of questionable financial dealings, that will not sit well with a public already feeling they have been hammered by the questionable dealings of Wall Street. Elizabeth Warren, who should be the candidate, looks better and better.
richard (Guilford)
When Apple computer company was almost down and out in the late nineties Bill gates came to it rescue buying Apple stock to foster competition in the software industry. Perhaps Hillary should do likewise and encourage Warren to run for the sake of the vitality of the party. Otherwise we have a monopoly on the Democratic side of the ticket. Twisting arms to keep Warren off the ticket does a disservice to the whole electoral structure.
Good analogy. Of course, Bill Gates was concerned that if Microsoft became too powerful, that the SEC would come down on it with anti-trust violations.

Unfortunately, we do not have the electoral equivalent of the SEC. Unless, of course, you count the American people conducting a grassroots campaign to get Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, Joe Biden or Jerry Brown to run in the Democratic Primaries.
sfpk (San Francisco)
Thank God for honest and complete journalism. While it is incessantly lambasted as a lefty newspaper, I am quite certain that a a damning report about Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Scott Walker would never see the light of day in the WSJ, Washington Times, or other "right" publication.

As a supporter of Ms. Clinton, I find this news very difficult to read and it certainly saddens and angers me. But I am glad the NY Times has presented it. When I think of my beliefs politically, I have never thought I lean left or right; rather, I lean toward the truth, and want to make my decisions based on facts, and not on preconceived notions or confirmation bias, as most news organizations make efforts to do when telling news stories to the public.

This story is really important, albeit difficult to digest, and I am thankful that there is still at least one news publication that cares not so much about political persuasion as they do about finding the truth.
Robert (Brattleboro)
I applaud the NYT for running this story. The central issue here is that the Clintons are not fit to return to the White House. I would hope that the Democrats realize this sooner rather than later and get a viable candidate in front of the American public.
Bud (McKinney, Texas)
All theses Clinton disclosures mean nothing to the core Dems who will vote for her even if she were a convicted felon.It also means nothing to the voters who want to continue receiving our taxpayer funded freebies.BUT these disclosures do mean a lot to the independent bloc of voters and to the Repubs who stayed home in 20112 and did not vote.The Dems are in deep trouble with Hillary's candidacy.If she were the Repub candidate,the Times,Wash Post,NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,etc. would be "screaming from the rooftops" about Hillary's flaws.Other than this excellent Times story,there is muted silence about Hillary's transgressions.
Steven Snow (Providence, R.I.)
It may not be clear whether or not there was a "quo" for the "quid" but what is clear is that there is an appearance of impropriety here. Mrs. Clinton is a lawyer, among other things, and she has professional responsibilities to avoid an appearance of impropriety. No lesser standard should apply to a Secretary of State, or a candidate for President of the United States. The honorable thing for her to do is to pull out of the race. But she won't.
Rita (California)
Please apply the same standards to all candidates, officials and their family members.

If the appearance of impropriety was the standard for candidates and elected officials, we would have no candidates or elected officials. And since you want to apply that standard to spouses, let's take a look at the political involvement of Ms. Clarence Thomas and who makes donations to her organizations.
Jack M (NY)
Democrats can do better.
Women can do better.
Humanity can do better.
enzo11 (CA)
Yes, Liberals - these are the people you put into office oh so many years ago, and believed through all of what you and the media termed as "fake scandals".

Are you proud still?

And no, the Repubs aren't much better, but at least there has been constant scrutiny of them, instead of the running interference and cover that newspapers like this one have done for so long.

Makes me wonder just what Hillary did to the NYT that they have finally started to scrutinize her.
kicksotic (New York, NY)
Started to scrutinize her? Evidently you need to revisit the 2008 Primary and the rantings of Miss Maureen I-Hate-Hillary-with-the-Passion-of-a-Thousand-Burning-Suns Dowd.

And where were you during the 90s when the NY Times was nothing BUT a never-ending hit piece on the Clintons?

Started to? Really?
Earl Horton (Harlem,Ny)
Hillary Clinton should never ever be President, she has too much baggage. Same applies to Jeb Bush, too much baggage. Both have committed numerous ethical breaches, and more likely have committed criminal acts for which someone else fell on the sword.
What a travesty, to think that the Clintons are the answer. Bill is amoral, what he did to those young female interns was disgusting. It showed he has no morality or integrity. He has the nerve to speak derogatorily about Pres. Obama? At least Michelle Obama won't have to deal with a husband who commits adultery within the four walls of the White house, then lie about it profusely.
Hillary Clinton is not a credible candidate let's face it...
Carl Fales (Troy, OH)
Is America really going to elect this stale, tired, old, corrupt, unethical woman simply because....well, just because she is a woman? Really? After 8 years of the catastrophic Obama administration are we going to vote for Obama's 3rd term?

If Hillary Clinton is our next President....well, let's just say that America had a good run while it lasted. Sure, all of the maps will still be marked "USA" - but "America", at least as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, will be done.
EdH (CT)
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill: "Indeed it has been said that Hilary is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other Republicans that have been tried from time to time.…"
Mel Vigman (Summit NJ)
She's going to have a lot of 'splainin to do. ( Also, Obama if he knew about this.)
lulu (out there)
The Koch Bros. and their cohorts are buying the federal govt for $2 billion and you're worried about a couple of million?
David (Seattle)
As far as ethics goes, you're just haggling over price.
R Murty K (Fort Lee, NJ 07024 / Hyderabad, India)
These couple of millions are for looking the other way when a foreign government was buying up world's most strategic natural assets located in North America.
Roberto (Maryland)
Did you forget Soros and Steyer?
John Gotwalt (NYC NY)
So, in essence, she sold off part of the country for her own gain ? Just like Bloomberg sold off NYC. Capitalism, you gotta love it.
Capitalism isn't the problem. The corruption comes from the character of those who wield it.
grandsam23 (Birmingham AL)
Very disappointed in the Times "reporting" of this conflation of "facts". 1. Hillary did not approve the Uranium One deal, the CFIUS did, comprised of Secretaries of Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, Energy, and State! 2. Bill Clinton's foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity, not a Clinton bank account. 3. Does "national security" hysteria really apply to a commodity which isn't needed anymore, and which cannot be exported from the U.S.? Perhaps that is why CFIUS approved it?
mpound (USA)
"Bill Clinton's foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity, not a Clinton bank account."

You may want to revisit this assertion as the story unfolds.
Gardener (Ca &amp; NM)
There is nothing new in the fact that politicians and corporations are in the business of selling this country away to foreign interests, friendly and otherwise, from American citizens, in the continuing "fast track" to globalization. Security of the United States of America, though held up as a goal by our government through constant surveillance efforts, is not top of the list. TPA though, to which President Obama gives full support, is top of the list in continuing efforts to cushion the wealth of politicians and Corporate elite during the change over into the new world order. The information in this article offers no shocking surprise, tip of the iceberg for candidates of both political parties in muddy speculating as we move into the campaigning phase for the 2016 presidential run. We need a clean Democratic-Progressive candidate for the 2016 election, but where is an honest, intelligent person who will stand to represent a more equitable nation to be found from either political party when Citizens United rules the day. Republican candidates, Jeb Bush, of course not. Hillary Clinton, for me, obviously not, as indicated by years of fence jumping speculation, and her poor showing in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Nothing in her calculating efforts to muddy the Clinton's speculative enterprises has changed, and there is nothing to show that Mrs. Clinton has seen the light to become a Presidential candidate worthy of anyone's trust.
Reg Grant (Camden ME)
I think we are beginning to get a better idea on why Hillary used her own email server located in her own house. and ... why it took her a couple of years to clean up her emails to give the remainder to the State Department. and why she had that email server cleaned up of the remaining emails - as she claims. She sure was busy with deals during her tenure as Secretary of State for 4 years.
The Clintons have amassed a $2B pot of money to defend themselves.
Thanks for bringing out this story - I guess this is why I had several teachers say that the NY Times is the must read newspaper.
I don't think that fiction book writers could come up with a story this grandiose.
Lane Terrell (Dallas)
Wow - for a minute there I thought I was reading a hit piece from Fox News. The real story here is how the NYT and Fox reached an agreement with Peter Schweizer for exclusive access to his "material" prior to the publication of his book. Want to follow some cash, NYT? Try looking into his connection with the Koch brothers and then maybe rewriting the story in an unbiased manner that would be more befitting of an organization as esteemed as the NYT.
Fahey (Washington State)
This is just likely to be the tip of the iceberg with more reports forthcoming about the Clinton Foundation.
So it continues, with more and more about Candidate Clinton
To date, there is no evident effort for a primary with opportunities for debate, to engage, to contest her policy, her decisions, her ethics.
If past is precedent, Ms. Clinton will likely brush it off, be dismissive, claim reports a "vast Right wing conspiracy"
Apparently the questionable deals and quid pro quo are indeed the very foundation for the Clinton tactics.
DRS (New York, NY)
I'll make Democrats a deal. You forgo your Clintons and we'll do the same with our Bushes. Fair?
Jj (Holmdel nj)
Is this corruption? You don't know?

Well, ask your self how you would react if Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio did it.
Midwest mom (Midwest)
Here is, sadly, a name one never hears called out when one is looking for extremely intelligent, socially progressive, and HONEST leadership: Alan Grayson. He could beat a Bush. Why isn't anyone interested in this man running for President? He is by far the best potential candidate.
fitness101 (texas)
When are people going to learn that a document, Law, agreement or pledge can not be written that someone can not find a loophole in it. It all else fails, then completely ignoring it, seems to be the Clinton's way. Do you really think there is a document that states "if you do this for me, I will do this for you". How utterly ridiculous for anyone to have to have that before their common sense kicks in. Where there is smoke there is fire. America, there is smoke all around us. To sit there and criticize, demonize and vilify CEOs for making millions working 16 hour days and running a large organization, yet fawning over Bill and Hillary increasing their personal wealth by hundreds of millions in a very short time is ludicrous. Thank you NYT for not shoving these exposures under the table.
How incredibly selfish must a candidate be to throw their hat in the ring knowing this sort of baggage was on their cart?

Of course, I am sure that she, like many other politicians, had "no idea" the subordinates in the organization were doing these things. And who knows, maybe that's really true. But in politics and our goldfish-level public consciousness, perception is reality.

It's really quite surprising that the Clinton family's collective political acumen didn't consider the potential danger to their campaign and, by extension the party, that will come from the Anointed One being shredded by an opponent given that this news that will inevitably prove to be only the tip of the iceberg.
D C (St Louis)
Another wooden stake in the heart of the Bill and Hillary. Excellent.
Dalton (California)
And God knows we wouldn't want to experience the kinds of years we had under Bill. A massively booming economy, 22 million new jobs, no wars, etc.

jim chin (jenks ok)
The Clintons are Brilliant. They have turned $10,000 into a hundred thousand trading commodities. They have gone from "Dirt poor" to among the richest families in America. They certainly believe in wealth redistribution to themselves. Amazingly Hilary will attempt to position herself as the candidate fighting income inequality for the middle class. In the process she will decry the 1%ers while she and Bill and their daughter rake it in. If voters buy their spin our country will witness the greatest wealth distribution the world has ever known as the Clinton foundation rivals the Gates foundation for assets. Bill will further leverage Hilary's presidency for all it is worth. Voters should wake up and remember that despite their brilliance in avoiding and spinning they are a sleezey greedy bunch.
Dalton (California)
Opposed to...?
Don (USA)
As the President Obama is responsible and should be held accountable for the actions of his staff. Hillary is no exception.
Flemdan (DuBois)
And all this time, we thought that Hillary did absolutely nothing as Sec of State. Of course, we knew that she accumulated more flying miles and stayed at more 5 star hotels than and politician in history, but we thought that was just her being "Queen Hillary". Here, she was making deals all of the time, just none on behalf of the United States.
Pete (New Jersey)
All this newest "revelation" does is reinforce the fact that the Democrats really need a "Plan B" rather than putting all of their eggs in the single basket of Hillary Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, she carries so much political baggage that she could single-handedly lose the 2016 elections, which the Democrats should be able to win on policy issues. And that "Plan B" really needs to be an electable candidate, not the often-mentioned, but probably too left-wing for the majority voting populace, Elizabeth Warren.
farhorizons (philadelphia)
The Clintons are venal parvenus. He did not deserve to be president and neither does she. No class, no morality.
See also