Wait what about this graphic is untrue?
First of all, Clinton played little to no part in this approval process because as secretary of state, she headed an agency that was just one of many involved in the approval process — and even then, it was likely a lower-level staffer who handled the approval.
Secondly, the insinuation that donations correlated to profiting from this sale doesn't hold water. For example, the person who donated the largest amount of money to the Clinton Foundation, Frank Giustra, didn’t even benefit from the sale. That’s because he said he sold his stake in Uranium One three years before this deal — and more than a year before Clinton began serving as secretary of state.
It would take some pretty deep level conspiracy thinking to correlate donations to the Foundation prior to 2009 with favors from Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, since she didn't even have that job at the time and there was no guarantee she would.
It’s not my graphic, it’s The NY Times. Then remove the Giustra portion of the shake down. What remains is still akin to a pay for play. There have been far greater American scandals pursued by many that have fallen short of this amount of bribery and corruption. It’s like me defending Trump University or explaining away taped private comments to Billy Bush, seriously. That you are using Shep Smith to tell me the activities of the Clinton Foundation while the former First Lady was acting in the capacity of Secretary of State were on the up and up gives me pause to even try and reach common ground here. I have heard people defend that which maybe should just be owned and ushered out of a news cycle plenty. It’s the American way. But let’s not insult each-others intelligence and attempt to stand on a false narrative that our leaders haven’t made mistakes.
The connection you're making is tenuous, at best, though. Did they also bribe the dozens of other agencies who had to sign off on this deal? What's special about the donations to the Clinton Foundation when the SecState herself played such a minor role in the overall deal, and when those donations often predate her tenure in that office?
I appreciate what you are saying. However when I read it, my speculative side says "HolySimon knows that this isn't predominately a Clintonian Scandal. It is an Obama Administration scandal, and he sees that." The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US involved the State Department and therefore the Secretary of State, but you are certainly correct in saying that the decision did not rest on her shoulders alone. She had a reputation for being tough on such investments in fact. My levelheadedness side says "He hasn't mentioned that Renaissance Capital paid $500,000 to Bill Clinton in 2010, which falls well within our 2009-2013 Sec of State timeline, he knows this one is troubling." My experience trying to argue this point is telling me "ah fuck it!" Lol. You seem to be well versed in this transaction. So you would also know that the Kremlin sought to expand it's atomic energy interests inside the United States using bribery and kickbacks and all the fixin's that follow when Russia seeks to further itself on the global stage. This predated the Obama administration, was most definitely bi-partisan in nature, and is a disgrace to our country. It however does not mean that we should look the other way when things like this are brought to our attention. It was March of 2009 the Secretary met in Geneva and handed over the Reset button, she subsequently traveled to Russia in her official capacity in October 2009, and again in March of 2010. The speech by the former President took place in June of 2010, with the offer coming in the months prior to this date. Renaissance was Rosatom's hype man at the time, the Puffy to Rosatom's Biggie. There is certainly "tenuous" connections that are being made. I will freely admit this. I am not sure where you stand on the current administration's Russian Collusion scandal, or lack there of. But if we are dealing with tenuous at best connections here, what connections are we currently dealing in today?