MEMORANDUM

FROM:
Brian Fallon, Hillary for America National Press Secretary
TO:
Friends and Allies
DATE:
April 23, 2015
RE:
Its Official: Book Attacking Hillary Clinton Full of Discredited,
Disproved Attacks

By this point, youve 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, its 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 authors 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

Lets take a look at how his baseless claims are already being discredited by
independent news agencies...

According to TIME Magazine, one of the books primary accusations is based
on little evidence with allegations presented as questions rather than proof,
all while finding no indication of Hillary Clintons 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 evidencethe allegations are presented as
questions rather than proof. The deals 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 deals approval told TIME that Clinton did not weigh in on

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 Departments role in approving the deal was part of an extensive
bureaucratic process, and the chapter offers no indication of Hillary Clintons
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 cant 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
Departments principal representative on the committee, rejected the notion
that Clintons 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 2008. 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 Giustras Colombian business interests, she would have been for
the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131

million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! Thats not
exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if youre 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 administrations position Now, for Clinton to have
known in 2008 that all this would play out to Frank Giustras 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 books 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 Clintons charity work
and Hillary Clintons work at the State Department ultimately leading to
her support of the trade deal. But Schweizer presents little evidence that
Clintons support of the trade deal was directly linked to Guistras
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 Clintons speaking fees, a favorite target in
conservative circles, as a potential avenue to influence Hillary. He links the
timing of the State Departments 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 Clintons 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 2013. 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 books false attacks and conspiracy theories, but
bit by bit, the truth will come to light. This isnt the first baseless smear against
Hillary Clinton, and it certainly wont be the last.

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, todays
New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with
the U.S. governments 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 storylike the book on which it is based
wrongly suggests that Hillary Clintons State Department pushed for the sales
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 thenSecretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.
The Times own public editor has taken issue with the papers 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 dont like the
way it looked. It certainly doesnt 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 Clintons role in this matter.
1. The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the
State Departments 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 Secretarys level. Rather, it is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic,
Energy and Business Affairs who serves as the State Departments 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

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 2005. 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 Ones
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 Clintons
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, Telferas the acting head of Uranium One in 2010
had a financial interest in the companys 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. governments review of the sale of Uranium One. In addition to
the fact that Hillary Clinton herself did not have a role in the State Departments
review of the deal, the Department itself was just one playerand not even a
major onein 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
Stateincluding the Departments of Justice, Energy and Commercesit 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.

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.