Fact 1: Clinton Trade Deals “Are Disastrous”
Trump: "This includes fixing all of our many disastrous trade deals — and they are disastrous, they’re destroying our country, because it’s not just the political system that’s rigged, it’s the whole economy.” (Donald Trump, Speech On Hillary Clinton, New York, NY, 6/22/16) “More Than 5 Million U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Were Lost Between 1997 And 2014,” Primarily Due To “Growing Trade Deficits With Countries That Have Negotiated Trade And Investment Deals With The United States.” This Is A Loss Of One-Third Of U.S. Manufacturing During The NAFTA-China Era. “More than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1997 and 2014, and most of those job losses were due to growing trade deficits with countries that have negotiated trade and investment deals with the United States.” (Robert E. Scott, “Fast Track To Lost Jobs And Lower Wages,” Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics Blog, 4/13/15)
In December 2014, There Were 12,294 Million U.S. Manufacturing Jobs, Down From 17,297,000 U.S. Manufacturing Jobs In 1997. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/24/16) Since NAFTA Took Effect In January 1994, The U.S. Has Lost 4,570,000 Manufacturing Jobs, A 27 Percent Decline. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
In May 2016, The U.S. Had 12,285,000 Manufacturing Jobs, Down From 16,855,000 Manufacturing Jobs In January 1994. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
“The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Entered Into Force On January 1, 1994.” (M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian Fergusson, “The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” Congressional Research Service, 4/16/15) After Normalizing Trade Relations With China, The Economic Policy Institute Estimated That “Growth In The U.S. Goods Trade Deficit With China Between 2001 And 2013 Eliminated Or Displaced 3.2 Million U.S. Jobs.” “Growth in the U.S. goods trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2013 eliminated or displaced 3.2 million U.S. jobs, 2.4 million (three-fourths) of which were in manufacturing. These lost manufacturing jobs account for about two-thirds of all U.S. manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between December, 2001 and December 2013.” (Will Kimball and Robert E. Scott, “China Trade, Outsourcing And Jobs,” Economic Policy Institute, 12/11/14)
The Economic Policy Institute Estimates That The U.S. Trade Deficit With The 11 TPP Nations Led To The Elimination Of More Than 2 Million U.S. Jobs In 2015. “The U.S. trade deficit with the 11 other TPP countries eliminated 2 million jobs, as shown in Table 2, which reports the number of direct, indirect, and respending jobs lost (aggregated over all industries). The trade deficit between the United States and the 11 other TPP member countries in 2015 directly eliminated 418,900 jobs. In addition to the direct jobs lost, the U.S. trade deficit with the TPP country group eliminated an additional 847,200 indirect jobs in supplier industries, including jobs in manufacturing, commodity, and service industries. Finally, wages lost because of direct and indirect job cuts from the trade deficits with the TPP member countries would have supported an additional 759,700 respending jobs. The direct, indirect, and respending jobs displaced by the U.S. trade deficit with TPP member countries totals 2,025,800 jobs lost.” (Robert E. Scott and Elizabeth Glass, “Trans-Pacific Partnership, Currency Manipulation, Trade, And Jobs,” Economic Policy Institute, 3/3/16)
Fact 2: Clinton Lied About Her Landing In Bosnia
Trump: “Her phony landing in Bosnia, where she said she was under attack, and the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers, a total and — look, this was — this was one of the beauts, a total and self-serving lie. Brian Williams’ career was destroyed for saying less, remember that.” (Donald Trump, Speech On Hillary Clinton, New York, NY, 6/22/16)
On March 25, 1996, Hillary Clinton As First Lady Landed In Bosnia To Meet With U.S. Soldiers And Local Leaders. "First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton launched her latest venture onto the international stage Sunday with a visit to offer support for families of U.S. troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Today, she travels to Bosnia, where she will meet U.S. soldiers and religious and community leaders in Tuzla and two nearby outposts." (Bill Nichols, "First Lady On Mission Of Support In Bosnia Today To Address Troops," USA Today, 3/25/96)
When Recounting The Trip As A Presidential Candidate In 2008, Clinton Said "I Remember Landing Under Sniper Fire. There Was Supposed To Be Some Kind Of Greeting Ceremony At The Airport, But Instead We Just Ran With Our Heads Down." CLINTON: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Washington, D.C., 3/17/08)
PolitiFact: "But That's Not What Happened, As Demonstrated By CBS News Video That Shows Clinton Arriving On The Tarmac Under No Visible Duress, And Greeting A Child Who Offers Her A Copy Of A Poem." "During an introduction to a foreign policy speech on Iraq on March 17, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton reminisced about her days as first lady and a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia, she made in March 1996. 'I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.' But that's not what happened, as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem."(Angie Drobnic Holan, "Video Shows Tarmac Welcome, No Snipers," PolitiFact, 3/25/08)
Fact 3: Clinton Performed Favors for Donors As Secretary Of State
Trump: “Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and even theft. She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund, doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others and really many, many others in exchange for cash.” (Donald Trump, Speech On Hillary Clinton, New York, NY, 6/22/16)
Harper’s Ken Silverstein: The Clinton’s Political Allies Won The Focused Attention Of Secretary Clinton At The State Department. “…it is beyond dispute that these very same donors and the Clintons’ political allies have won the focused attention of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State.” (Ken Silverstein, “Shaky Foundations,” Harper’s Magazine, 11/18/15)
“One Of The Reasons That The Clinton Foundation Has Become Such A Formidable Fund-Raising Machine Is That Donors Appear To Hope To Gain Access To The Corridors Of Political Power With Their Gifts.” (“Why The Clinton Foundation Is So Controversial,” The Economist, 2/7/16)
The Problem With The Clinton Foundation Is That Appears Vulnerable To Conflicts Of Interest. “The problem is that a foundation, which is led by an ex-president and someone who hopes to be elected president by the end of the year, can appear vulnerable to conflicts of interest.” (“Why The Clinton Foundation Is So Controversial,” The Economist, 2/7/16)
Example Of Clinton Favoritism To Friends
Raj Fernando Was Appointed To The State Department’s International Security Advisory Board By Clinton’s Chief Of Staff Cheryl Mills At Her “Insistence.” “The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to ‘S’; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State. ‘The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,’ wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. ‘Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.’” (Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross and Cho Park, “How Clinton Donor Got On Sensitive Intelligence Board,” ABC News, 6/10/16)
“Hillary Clinton's State Department Aides Rushed A Top Secret Security Clearance For A Democratic Donor In Order To Place Him In A Government Position For Which He Was Not Qualified.” (Sarah Westwood, “Clinton Aides Rushed Top Secret Clearance For Foundation Donor,” The Washington Examiner, 6/16/16)
Fernando Has Contributed Between $1,000,001 And $5,000,000 To The Clinton Foundation. (The Clinton Foundation, Accessed 6/10/16)
The Sultan Of Oman Clinton Said “I'm Very Proud Of The Iran Nuclear Agreement. I Was Very Pleased To Be Part Of What The President Put Into Action When He Took Office.” CLINTON: “Well, I'm very proud of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I was very pleased to be part of what the president put into action when he took office. I was responsible for getting those sanctions imposed which put the pressure on Iran. It brought them to the negotiating table which resulted in this agreement.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Democrat Primary Debate, Charleston, SC, 1/17/16)
Clinton: “I Was Responsible For Getting Those Sanctions Imposed Which Put The Pressure On Iran. It Brought Them To The Negotiating Table Which Resulted In This Agreement.” CLINTON: “Well, I'm very proud of the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I was very pleased to be part of what the president put into action when he took office. I was responsible for getting those sanctions imposed which put the pressure on Iran. It brought them to the negotiating table which resulted in this agreement.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Democrat Primary Debate, Charleston, SC, 1/17/16)
In 2012, Under Clinton’s State Department The US began Secret U.S.-Iran Negotiations In Oman. “Oman, a trusted U.S. ally in a strategic location at the toe of the Arabian Peninsula, prides itself as a stable presence and mediator in a region beset by conflict. The country of 4 million people has a ‘good neighbor’ policy with Iran and close relations with the West. Its ruler, Sultan Qaboos, orchestrated secret U.S.-Iran contacts that began in Muscat in 2012, leading to the first formal talks between the United States and Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and helping to pave the way for July’s nuclear deal, a legacy-defining foreign-policy achievement for President Barack Obama.” (Jason Szep, Matt Spetalnick and Yara Bayoumy, “In Favoring Middle East Ally, U.S. Glossed Over Human Rights Record,” Reuters, 12/21/15)
According To The 2012 U.S. State Department Report On Human Rights Practices For Oman, Human Rights Violations Reported Included Political And Economic Discrimination Of Women, And Restriction Of Freedom Of Speech And Assembly. “The principal human rights problems were the inability of citizens to change their government, limits on freedom of speech and assembly, and discrimination against women, including political and economic exclusion based on cultural norms.
Thirty-two individuals were convicted on charges of libel against the sultan during the year, receiving prison sentences from six to 18 months and fines of 500 to 1,000 Omani rials (approximately $1,300 to $2,600). Another 12 individuals were convicted on charges of illegal assembly (assembly without a permit) while peacefully protesting some of the libel convictions. The protesters each received a prison sentence of one year and a 1,000 rial fine (approximately $2,600).” (“Country Reports
On Human Rights Practices For 2012: Oman,” U.S. State Department, 4/19/13)
Oman Also Experienced Restriction Of The Freedom Of Press, Forced Labor And Abuse Of Foreign Citizen Workers. “Other ongoing concerns included lack of independent inspections of prisons and detention centers, restrictions on press freedom, instances of domestic violence, and instances of foreign citizen laborers placed in conditions of forced labor or abuse.” (“Country Reports On Human Rights Practices For 2012: Oman,” U.S. State Department, 4/19/13)
After Their Help Brokering Clinton’s Iran Deal, Oman Was Spared From The State Department’s Worst Human Rights Records Classifications. “As the United States negotiated this year’s nuclear pact with Iran, the State Department quietly agreed to spare the Gulf sultanate of Oman from an embarrassing public rebuke over its human rights record, rewarding a close Arab ally that helped broker the historic deal.” (Jason Szep, Matt Spetalnick and Yara Bayoumy, “In Favoring Middle East Ally, U.S. Glossed Over Human Rights Record,” Reuters, 12/21/15)
In 2015 Oman Was “Downgraded” On A State Department List Of Countries With Poor Human Trafficking Records So It Could Avoid Incurring U.S. Sanctions. “In April, diplomats in the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs bureau and experts in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons agreed that Oman would be downgraded from ‘Tier 2’ to a status known as ‘Tier 2 Watch List’, one notch above a level that can incur U.S. sanctions, according to an internal department memo seen by Reuters.” (Jason Szep, Matt Spetalnick and Yara Bayoumy, “In Favoring Middle East Ally, U.S. Glossed Over Human Rights Record,” Reuters, 12/21/15)
Indian Politician Amar Singh
Singh Is The Former Leader Of The Samajwadi Party In India. “Former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh told the Delhi Police on Wednesday that Sunanda Pushkar had spoken to him about taking the blame for the IPL controversy over the Kochi franchise.” (“Amar Singh Questioned In Sunanda Case,” The Hindu, 1/29/15)
As Early As 2008, Indian Politician Amar Singh Had Donated Between $1,000,001 And $5,000,000 To The Clinton Foundation. (Peter Baker and Charlie Savage, “In Clinton List, A Veil Is Lifted On Foundation,” The New York Times, 12/18/08)
Singh Visited The U.S. In September 2008 To Lobby For A Deal Allowing India To Obtain Civilian Nuclear Technology; Then-Senator Clinton Assured Him Democrats Would Not Block The Deal. “The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to $5 million. Mr. Singh visited the United States in September to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it weeks later.” (Peter Baker and Charlie Savage, “In Clinton List, A Veil Is Lifted On Foundation,” The New York Times, 12/18/08)
Then-Senator Hillary Clinton Voted In Favor On The Nuclear Agreement. “On December 18, President George W. Bush signed into law the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act giving legal effect to his July 2005 promise to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to confer de facto recognition to India as a nuclear weapons state. That status has enormous symbolic importance to India and the world. It also has the practical consequence of allowing India to import nuclear technology for peaceful power production without having first to renounce its developing nuclear arsenal (which it has consistently vowed never to do). The bill passed with broad bipartisan support, including favorable votes from Democratic heavyweights such as Senator Joseph Biden (from Delaware), Representative Tom Lantos (from California), Senator John Kerry (from Massachusetts), Senator Hillary Clinton (from New York), and Senator Christopher Dodd (from Connecticut).” (Ashton Carter, “How Washington Learned To Stop Worrying And Love India's Bomb,” Harvard’s Belfer Center, 1/10/07)
Clinton Voted To Approve The U.S. India Nuclear Agreement On October 1, 2008. (H.R. 7081, CQ Vote #211: Adopted 86-13: R 49-0; D 36-12, With Hillary Clinton Casting A “Yea” Vote, 10/1/08)
“Congress Approved It Weeks Later.” (Peter Baker and Charlie Savage, “In Clinton List, A Veil Is Lifted On Foundation,” The New York Times, 12/18/08)
It Was Also Disclosed In 2008 That The Confederation Of Indian Industry Gave $500,000 To $1 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “The list highlights ties between the Clintons and Indian interests, including Amar Singh, an Indian politician who met with Hillary Rodham Clinton in September to discuss an Indian-U.S. civil nuclear agreement. He gave $1 million to $5 million. The Confederation of Indian Industry gave $500,000 to $1 million.” (Fredreka Schouten, “Bill Clinton Discloses Foundation Donors,” USA Today, 12/18/08)
In 2011, Bill Clinton Sent Singh A Handwritten Thank You Note After The Clinton Foundation Gave A Charcoal Stove On Singh’s Behalf. “Former SP leader Amar Singh recently got a pleasant surprise when he received a thank you note from former US president Bill Clinton. Clinton wrote to him, thanking for his ‘gift’ of a charcoal stove and briquettes to a family in Haiti, which is facing a severe cholera epidemic after last year's massive earthquake. ‘This year, in your name, the Clinton Foundation gave an efficient charcoal stove and briquettes manufactured from 100 per cent recycled waste to a family in Haiti,’ Clinton wrote to Singh in the second half of December.” (“Clinton Thanks Amar Singh,” The Indian Express, 1/7/11)
The Uranium One Deal In Kazakhstan
The New York Times Headline: “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
This Approval Process Took Place While Bill Clinton “Was Collecting Millions In Donations From People Associated With Uranium One.” “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Uranium One’s Chairman Was Canadian Ian Telfer. “The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Telfer’s Family Charity Is Called The Fernwood Foundation, Which Donated Millions “During And After The Critical Time When The Foreign Investment Committee Was Reviewing His Deal With The Russians.” “But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
In 2009, The Fernwood Foundation Donated $1 Million, The Same Year Uranium One “Appealed To The American Embassy To Help Keep Its Mines In Kazakhstan, $250,000 In 2010, The Year The Russians Sought Majority Control; As Well As $600,000 In 2011 And $500,000 In 2012.” “His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
“Amid This Influx Of Uranium One Connected Money” Flowing To The Foundation, Bill Clinton Spoke In Moscow In June 2010, The Same Month Russia “Struck Its Deal For A Majority Stake In Uranium One.” “Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Bill Clinton Was Paid $500,000, One Of His Highest Speaking Fees Ever, From “A Russian Investment Bank With Ties To The Kremlin…” “The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
For His Appearance At The Renaissance Capital Investors Conference, Bill Clinton Received A Personal Thank-You Call From Vladimir Putin. “After the appearance, Mr. Clinton received a personal thank-you call from Vladimir Putin, then the Russian prime minister, the government news agency TASS reported.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Speaking Fees Meet Politics For Clintons,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/30/15)
In 2005 Frank Giustra “Orchestrated His First Big Uranium Deal” In Kazakhstan With Bill Clinton By His Side. “The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Mines In Kazakhstan Are “Among The Most Lucrative In The World…” “Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Several Months After The 2005 Kazakhstan Trip, Giustra Donated $31.3 Million To The Clinton Foundation. “Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
By 2009, Uranium One’s Stock Was In “Free-Fall, Down 40 Percent.” “By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Rosatom Was Eyeing A Stake In Uranium One. “At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Rosatom Is The Russian Atomic Energy Agency. “The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Russia Wanted A Stake In The Uranium Mines Because Their Country “Lacks Sufficient Domestic Reserves To Meet Its Own Industry Needs.” “Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
“Uranium One Pressed The American Embassy In Kazakhstan” For “Written Confirmation That The Licenses Were Valid According To American Cables. “It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables. ‘We want more than a statement to the press,’ Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. ‘That is simply chitchat.’ What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
The American Embassy Reports To The Secretary Of State, And The Cable Was Copied To Clinton. “The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
“What Is Clear Is That The Embassy Acted, With The Cables Showing That The Energy Officer Met With Kazakh Officials To Discuss The Issue On June 10 And 11.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
In 2010 When The Russians Wanted To Up Their Stake In Uranium One To 51 Percent, Giving Them A Controlling Stake, It Set Off “Alarm Bells” In America. “But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
This “Generous Offer To Shareholders” Came Within A Year Of The 17 Percent Stake Deal. “And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
In The 2010 Deal, The Russians Offered Shareholders Like Telfer A “Special Dividend” Meaning He Stood To Profit From The Deal. “With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Before Approval Of The 51% Russian Controlling Stake Of Uranium One, US Government Had To “Sign Off On The Deal.” “But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
The Power To Sign Off On These Deals Rests With “The Committee On Foreign Investment In The United States.” “When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal. Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Secretary Clinton Was On This Committee. “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.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
The Uranium One Deal Was Important To National Security Because It “Concerned American Dependence On Foreign Uranium Sources.” “The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium. Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
The United States Needs Uranium For Powering Nuclear Energy Plants, Where We Get One Fifth Of Our Power From, But We Only Produce Around 20% Of The Uranium We Need To Do So. “While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of ‘The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.’” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
“The Deal Made Rosatom One Of The World’s Largest Uranium Producers And Brought Mr. Putin Closer To His Goal Of Controlling Much Of The Global Uranium Supply Chain.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
“The Sale Gave The Russians Control Of One-Fifth Of All Uranium Production Capacity In The United States.” “Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
The “Ultimate Authority To Approve Or Reject The Russian Acquisition Rested With Cabinet Officials On The Foreign Investment Committee Including Mrs. Clinton…” “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.” (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company,” The New York Times, 4/23/15)
Fact 4: The Clintons Made Millions From Speeches To Special Interests
TRUMP: “Then when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests and in less than two years, secret speeches that she does not want to reveal under any circumstances to the public. I wonder why? Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs and foreign governments in the years since 2001. They totally own her and that will never ever change, including if she ever became president, God help us.” (Donald Trump, Speech On Hillary Clinton, New York, NY, 6/22/16)
Since 2014, The Clintons Earned $30 Million, The Majority Of Which Came From Paid Speeches. Clinton’s Financial Disclosure Reveals Her Family Has Been Lifted “Into The Ranks Of The Uber-Wealthy.” “Clinton has tripped politically in addressing her personal wealth, drawing criticism last year for indicating she and her husband were “dead broke” when his term as president concluded in 2001. Though saddled with debt due to legal fees incurred from various White House scandals, Bill Clinton’s memoirs and frenetic speaking schedule quickly lifted the couple into the ranks of the uber-wealthy.” (Rosalind Helderman and Anne Gearan, “Clintons Earn More Than $25 Million In Speaking Fees Since January 2014,” The Washington Post, 5/15/15)
The Clintons’ “Level Of Income Would Place The Clintons In At Least The Top 0.1% Of The Population.” “The Clinton campaign released the figures Friday on the same day it filed a personal financial-disclosure statement required by the Federal Election Commission. That level of income would place the Clintons in at least the top 0.1% of the population.” (Peter Nicholas, “Clintons Received More Than $25 Million From Speeches Since January 2014,” Wall Street Journal, 5/15/15)
While Clinton Was A Senator And Secretary Of State, Her Husband Made $105 Million In Speaking Fees. “During the 11 years Hillary Clinton served as a U.S. senator and then Secretary of State, she reported that her husband made $105 million for delivering more than 540 speeches. Bill Clinton’s fees rose over time. By 2012, her last year at the state department, he earned more than $16.3 million for 72 speeches.” (Rosalind Helderman and Anne Gearan, “Clintons Earn More Than $25 Million In Speaking Fees Since January 2014,” The Washington Post, 5/15/15)
Former President Bill Clinton Earned $104.9 Million For 542 Speeches Between January 2001 And January 2013. “Bill Clinton has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left the White House, and January 2013, when Hillary stepped down as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family’s federal financial disclosures.” (Philip Rucker, Tom Hamburger and Alexander Becker, “How The Clintons Went From ‘Dead Broke’ To Rich: Bill Earned $104.9 Million For Speeches,” The Washington Post, 6/26/14)
According To Hillary Clinton’s Personal Financial Disclosure Released In May 2015, She And Bill Clinton “Made At Least $30 Million Over The Last 16 Months.” “Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, with the bulk of their income derived from more than 100 paid speeches, an official with her presidential campaign said late on Friday. The couple’s earnings and assets were to be detailed in personal financial disclosure forms that Mrs. Clinton and other presidential candidates were required to file with federal election officials no later than Friday. The filings cover the period since January 2014.” (Maggie Haberman and Steve Eder, “Clintons Reportedly Earned $30 Million In The Last 16 Months,” The New York Times, 5/15/15)
The Clintons Earned Over $25 Million In Speaking Fees Since The Beginning Of 2014 “A Huge Infusion To Their Net Worth As She Was Readying For A Presidential Bid.” “Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for delivering more than 100 speeches since the beginning of 2014, a huge infusion to their net worth as she was readying for a presidential bid.” (Rosalind Helderman and Anne Gearan, “Clintons Earn More Than $25 Million In Speaking Fees Since January 2014,” The Washington Post, 5/15/15)
After Leaving The Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton “Commanded Huge Fees As A Paid Speaker” Until “Just Weeks Before Her Presidential Announcement.” “After she left her post, Hillary Clinton herself commanded huge fees as a paid speaker. She was paid as much as $300,000 to speak at public universities, drawing backlash at times, though she generally donated those funds to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Clinton continued to deliver paid speeches until just weeks before her presidential announcement. Within the last year, she spoke to a scrap metal conference in Las Vegas, a major bank in Canada and the American Camp Association in Atlantic City.” (Rosalind Helderman and Anne Gearan, “Clintons Earn More Than $25 Million In Speaking Fees Since January 2014,” The Washington Post, 5/15/15)
Fact 5: Clinton Supported Her Husband’s “Disastrous” NAFTA Policy
Trump: Clinton Supported Her Husband’s “Disastrous” NAFTA Policy. TRUMP: “I have decided (ph) and visited cities and towns across America, all across America, and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it’s total devastation, all over New York, all over Pennsylvania, all over New England, all over the country. Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous and totally disastrous NAFTA.” (Donald Trump, Speech On Hillary Clinton, New York, NY, 6/22/16)
In 2003 In Her Book “Living History,” Clinton Praised NAFTA, Calling It An Example Of The Economy “Reaping The Benefits, Not The Burdens Of Globalization.” “Creating a free trade zone in North America- the largest free trade zone in the world- would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens of globalization.” (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History, 2003, p. 182)
At A Union Event In 1996, Then First-Lady Clinton Told Workers That “I Think That NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” CLINTON: “Oh I think that, everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” (First Lady Hillary Clinton, Remarks At An Event For The Union Of Needle Trades, Industrial, And Textile Employees (UNITE), New York, NY, 3/6/96)
The Economic Policy Institute Estimates That The U.S. Trade Deficit Caused By NAFTA Has Resulted In Nearly 700,000 Lost U.S. Jobs Through 2010. “NAFTA led to a flood of outsourcing and foreign direct investment in Mexico. U.S. imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than exports, leading to growing trade deficits, as shown in the Figure. Jobs making cars, electronics, and apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made. By 2010,trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.” (Robert E. Scott, “NAFTA’s Legacy,” Economic Policy Institute, 12/17/13)
Fact 6: Clinton Supported China’s Entrance Into The WTO
Trump: “Just Like She Supported China’s Entrance Into The World Trade Organization.” (Donald Trump, Speech On Hillary Clinton, New York, NY, 6/22/16)
In October 2000, Clinton Said She Supported Normalizing Trade Relations With China, And Would Have Voted For It Had She Been In The Senate. CLINTON: “Had I been in the Senate this year, I would have voted for normalizing trade relations with China.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks To The Council On Foreign Relations, New York, NY, 10/17/00)
Clinton Thought Normalizing Trade Relations With China Would Allow U.S. Companies Their First Chance To Compete In China. CLINTON: “That's a very good and hard question. And I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Eerie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO. Right now, we are trading with China. We have a huge trade deficit with China.
The agreement that has been negotiated between our two countries would open their markets to us in a way that they are not yet open, and in fact, for many large manufactured products, like automobiles, we would have the first chance to really get in and compete in that marketplace.” (CNN’s “Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer,” 8/26/00)
Fact 7: Since Hillary-Backed Trade Agreements Adopted Nearly 1/3 Of Americas Manufacturing Jobs Have Disappeared
Remainder of article at: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/ClintonFacts.pdf
Everyone can see here that the address is fully recognized and recorded on their record and under jurisdiction it reads “NONE” for the State of Minnesota, meaning that the State of Minnesota has NO jurisdiction in the matter.
