MEMORANDUM. Now, the dust is beginning to settle on some of his specific absurd attacks.

Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM FROM: Brian Fallon, Hillary for America National Press Secretary TO: Friends and Allies DATE: April 23, 2015 RE: It s Official: Book Attacking Hillary Clinton Full of Discredited, Disproved Attacks By this point, you ve heard plenty about the forthcoming smear project that has generated excitement among the people most desperate to tear down Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul has repeatedly hyped its attacks, and Sean Hannity has suggested it will be a bombshell. We already know that the author has longstanding conservative ties, from working for George W. Bush to writing for Breitbart.com. Now, the dust is beginning to settle on some of his specific absurd attacks. As the truth comes to light, it s bad news for both the author and the Republicans taking part in his coordinated attack on Hillary Clinton. Simply put: his accusations are proving to be completely devoid of evidence - - even by the author s own admission. The bottom line remains that the book fails to produce a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as Secretary of State for the purposes of supporting the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation Let s take a look at how his baseless claims are already being discredited by independent news agencies... According to TIME Magazine, one of the book s primary accusations is based on little evidence with allegations presented as questions rather than proof, all while finding no indication of Hillary Clinton s personal involvement in, or even knowledge of, the deliberations. The new book...says that Hillary Clinton failed in 2010 to block the purchase of American uranium mines by a Russian- backed company while people with financial and strategic interests in the sale were making millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation, a philanthropy run by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. The suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decision making is based on little evidence the allegations are presented as questions rather than proof. The deal s approval was the result of an extensive inter- agency process that required the assent of at least nine different officials and agencies. A former State Department official who participated in the deal s approval told TIME that Clinton did not weigh in on

2 the uranium sale one way or the other, and her campaign calls the allegations in the book, absurd conspiracy theories. [TIME, 4/22/15] 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. [TIME, 4/22/15] One official involved in the process said Clinton had nothing to do with the decision in the Uranium One case. Jose Hernandez, who as former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs was the State Department s principal representative on the committee, rejected the notion that Clinton s Foundation ties had any bearing on the deal. Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter, he told TIME. [TIME, 4/22/15] On yet another of his primary attacks, Yahoo News points out that the author marshals circumstantial evidence only to find no smoking gun. In a chapter obtained by Yahoo News, Schweizer marshals circumstantial evidence to suggest that Sweden- based global telecommunications giant Ericsson effectively influenced Hillary to spare it from punishing economic sanctions for doing business with Iran by paying $750,000 to Bill Clinton to speak at a Nov. 12, 2011, telecom conference in Hong Kong. There is, however, no smoking gun. [Yahoo News, 4/22/15] According to The Daily Beast, the author relies on a faulty, conspiracy- laden timeline to make another of his main accusations. The man whose business interests the Colombia deal apparently advanced was named Frank Giustra Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $131 million $31 million in 2006, and another $100 million pledged that same year that he made good on over the next three years, up through Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131

3 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! That s not exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if you re a committed enough Clintonologist, you can turn it all into a conspiracy So then she became Secretary of State. And, indeed, she did start supporting it but after that became the administration s position Now, for Clinton to have known in 2008 that all this would play out to Frank Giustra s benefit, she would have had to have known that Obama was going to beat John McCain and, rather more improbably than that, that Obama was going to appoint her to be his Secretary of State. [The Daily Beast, 4/22/15] Politico also questions the book s false accusation on this issue as being supported by little evidence. While stopping short of a direct accusation, the chapter, entitled Rainforest Riches, implies there was a blurred line between Bill Clinton s charity work and Hillary Clinton s work at the State Department ultimately leading to her support of the trade deal. But Schweizer presents little evidence that Clinton s support of the trade deal was directly linked to Guistra s contributions or to his close relationship with Bill Clinton. [Politico, 4/22/15] Additionally, according to ThinkProgress, the author explains he cannot prove the allegations on another claim and even relies on a two year- old fake TD Bank press release to support one of his attacks. Schweizer also fingers Bill Clinton s speaking fees, a favorite target in conservative circles, as a potential avenue to influence Hillary. He links the timing of the State Department s generally positive report on the Keystone XL Pipeline with a slew of Clinton speeches paid for by TD Bank, a major shareholder in the project. As proof of how crucial Clinton s support for the pipeline was to the bank, Schweizer quotes a press release that claimed TD Bank would begin selling its $1.6 billion worth of shares in the massive but potentially still- born Keystone XL crude pipeline project after Clinton left office. The press release was quickly revealed to be fake in Yet Schweizer, apparently unaware of the hoax, remarks, Too bad for TD Bank. But the Clintons got paid regardless. [ThinkProgress, 4/21/15] Republicans, their allies, and the people desperately trying to tear down Hillary Clinton will continue to rely on this book s false attacks and conspiracy theories, but bit by bit, the truth will come to light. This isn t the first baseless smear against Hillary Clinton, and it certainly won t be the last.

4 So while Republicans latch onto even the most far- fetched theories in an attempt to try to cut Hillary Clinton down, her focus will remain how to help everyday Americans get ahead and stay ahead. ### Clinton Cash & NYT Fail to Prove Any Connection Between Hillary Clinton & Russian Purchase of Uranium Assets Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story like the book on which it is based wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton s State Department pushed for the sale s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then- Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale. The Times own public editor has taken issue with the paper s arrangement with the author of Clinton Cash, saying, The Times should have been much more clear with readers about the nature of this arrangement and I still don t like the way it looked. It certainly doesn t look any better that the lead Times reporter appeared in a taped interview for a Fox News documentary attacking the Clintons on this matter prior to receiving our responses to her questions. The facts drawn from the Times own reporting undermine the innuendo in the Times story about Hillary Clinton s role in this matter. 1. The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department s review of the sale to the Russians. While it is true that the State Department sits on the multi-agency, inter-governmental panel that reviews deals like this one, Hillary Clinton herself did not participate in the review or direct the Department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. This is consistent with past practice; historically, matters pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.) do not rise to the Secretary s level. Rather, it is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs who serves as the State Department s principal representative to C.F.I.U.S. The individual who held that post in 2010 was Jose Fernandez, and he has personally attested that then-secretary Clinton never

5 interfered with him, saying Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter. 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. In its article, the Times focuses on Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman and known philanthropist whose donations to the Clinton Foundation date back to It is true that Mr. Giustra was the owner of a predecessor firm to Uranium One, the company whose sale was being reviewed by C.F.I.U.S. But by the time of Uranium One s proposed sale in 2010, Mr. Giustra no longer held a position with the company. In fact, as he told the Times, he had liquidated his stake in Uranium One entirely back in 2007 and thus had no reason to have sought any favor from Clinton s State Department. 3. A second Clinton Foundation donor referenced in the Times has specifically said he never spoke to her about the deal. In addition to Mr. Giustra himself, the Times points to a second Clinton Foundation donor and longtime business associate of Mr. Giustra by the name of Ian Telfer. It is true that, unlike Mr. Giustra, Telfer as the acting head of Uranium One in 2010 had a financial interest in the company s sale to the Russians. It is also true that he had previously donated to the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. But in a statement to the Times, Telfer told the paper he made the donations based on his wish to personally support Mr. Giustra in his charitable work, not based on any relationship to the Clintons. And most importantly, he told the Times that he never spoke to either President Clinton or then-secretary Clinton about his company, Uranium One. 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. In addition to the fact that Hillary Clinton herself did not have a role in the State Department s review of the deal, the Department itself was just one player and not even a major one in the C.F.I.U.S. process. It is the Treasury Department that serves as the lead agency in all C.F.I.U.S. matters, and seven other U.S. agencies besides State including the Departments of Justice, Energy and Commerce sit on the panel. To the extent a deal like the sale of Uranium One could be said to raise any national security concerns, both the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security also sit on the panel, and would have been party to the overall approval. Moreover, the 2010 sale of Uranium One was approved by more than just C.F.I.U.S. It was also green-lighted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Utah Department of Radiation and the Canadian government. In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists affirmed that the deal did not raise national security concerns.

6 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. The 2010 sale at issue in the Times story involved the Russians purchasing a 51 percent stake in Uranium One. But nearly three years later, the company announced that the Russians would be increasing their ownership to 100 percent. The company notified U.S. regulators of this in late January 2013, giving those bodies the opportunity to subject the new transaction to a review. Both the NRC and C.F.I.U.S. declined to do so, which was tantamount to green-lighting the deal. Notably this acceptance of the Russians complete takeover of Uranium One came after Secretary Clinton exited the State Department.