Mostly False
Trump
Says Hillary Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

Donald Trump on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016 in in a speech critiquing Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal

Donald Trump labels Hillary Clinton "a world class liar" in a speech in New York.

Hillary Clinton’s eponymous nonprofit foundation provided ready-made fodder for a series of attacks from Donald Trump.

In a major speech last week, the presumptive Republican nominee recited a number of claims from Clinton Cash, a 2015 bestselling investigation into donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Among them: "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation — $145 million dollars."

We wanted to vet this charge of Clinton engaging in pay-to-play politics.

Trump’s claim is a reductive version of his source material’s findings and runs into several problems.

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

The bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo.

Clinton’s unsubstantiated role

Did Clinton singlehandedly imperil national security by greenlighting the Russian deal, as Trump implies? No.

The company in question, Uranium One, does have mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. It churns out a smaller portion of actual uranium produced in the United States (11 percent in 2014), according to Oilprice.com.

But that’s less cause for alarm than Trump is suggesting.

For one, the United States doesn’t actually produce all that much uranium (about 2 percent in 2015) and is actually a net importer of the chemical, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation.

For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.

Trump is also wrong that Clinton alone allowed the transfer.

The Kremlin’s 2010 purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

That included Clinton as secretary of state, but also the secretaries of the Treasury (the chairman of the committee), Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security as well as the the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The deal also had to be okayed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator.

While it’s conceivable Clinton advocated for the deal, the author of Clinton Cash Peter Schweizer himself admitted that he doesn’t have "direct evidence" proving Clinton played a part. The State Department’s principal representative on the committee, Jose Fernandez, told Time that Clinton "never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

Why on earth would the United States allow the transfer of a uranium company?

As others, including a New York Times’ investigation, have explained, the United States was still seeking to "reset" its relationship with Russia and trying to get the Kremlin on board with its Iran nuclear deal. But at the end of the day, the Russian deal wasn’t that big.

Russia’s purchase of the company "had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire," said Lewis. "That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC ) approved it."

A condensed timeline

Trump's suggestion that the Russian deal occurred "while nine investors funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation" is not supported by the evidence presented in Clinton Cash.

On the contrary, the donations detailed by author Schweizer occurred at least two years before the deal. Furthermore, it’s not clear from the book whether all nine of the Clinton Foundation donors were actually involved in the Russian deal at all.

The timeline is key here, so bear with us. Uranium One had several facelifts between 2007 and 2013.

Back in 2007, it was a South African company that had mining assets in Africa and Australia. That spring, it merged with another mining company, the Canada-based UrAsia Energy. The combined company kept Uranium One as its name but Toronto as its base. Under the terms of the deal, the shareholders of UrAsia retained a 60 percent stake in the new company.

Russia didn’t get involved until two years later, in June 2009, when its nuclear agency started buying shares in Uranium One. The Kremlin upped its stake in the company from 17 percent to a controlling 51 percent the following year, and assumed total ownership of the company in 2013 (and renamed it to Uranium One Holding).

Out of the nine investors listed in Clinton Cash, five were linked to UrAsia only, and Schweizer doesn’t say whether they were still involved with the company after the merger and when Russia was buying it out.  (We asked Schweizer’s publicist via email, but we didn’t hear back.)

Using SEDAR, Canada’s filing system for public companies, we could only verify one UrAsia shareholder (Ian Telfer) who also owned stocks in Uranium One in 2010 and who chaired its Board of Directors. A New York Times investigation on the topic linked two others to Uranium One.

Why does it matter? Because UrAsia investors could have conceivably sold their shares before they could have profited off the Russian deal. In other words, giving to the Clinton Foundation wouldn’t have mattered to the allegedly Clinton-backed acquisition of 2010 if they had no stake in it.

We created a breakdown of the nine "investors" and their donations to the Clinton Foundation, based on the most complete information we could find through the Clinton Foundation, media reports and public filings as well as what Clinton Cash reported.

"Investor"

Connection

Donation

Year

Frank Giustra*

UrAsia Energy founder

$131.3 million

Late 2005 and June 2007

Frank Holmes*

Executive at U.S. Global Investors, which held Uranium One shares

$250,000 to $500,000

$100,000 in March 2008

Neil Woodyer*

Advisor to Uranium One

$500,000

March 2008

Robert Disbrow

Broker at Haywood Securities, which provided $58 million in capital UrAsia-Uranium One merger, according to Clinton Cash

$1 million to $5 million

$1 million in 2007

Paul Reynolds*

Financial advisor on UrAsia-Uranium One merger

$1 million to $5 million

$1 million in March 2008

Robert Cross

UrAsia shareholder and director

$500,000

March 2008

Egizio Bianchini

Cohead BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, underwriter for UrAsia-Uranium One Merger

$600,000

March 2008

Sergey Kurzin

UrAsia shareholder

$1 million

March 2008

Ian Telfer**

Uranium One chairman

$3 million

March 2008

Total

 

$139.15 million to $146.9 million

 
*Also named and confirmed by the New York Times investigation.

As you can see in the chart, the $145 million in donations didn’t happen "while" the Russian deal was occurring in 2010. According to Clinton Cash, five donors contributed $136.4 million at or before a March 2008 benefit hosted by Giustra. While the book doesn’t specify when the other four donated to the Clinton Foundation, we were able to trace another $2.6 million to the March fundraiser.

Furthermore, the bulk of the $145 million comes from Frank Giustra, the founder of UrAsia Energy and a major Clinton Foundation donor. Guistra says he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State" and three years before the Russian deal. We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim from UrAsia’s or Uranium One’s public filings.

Assuming Giustra is telling the truth, the donation amount from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from over $145 million to just $4 million. All of these occurred before the Russia deal.

One caveat: The New York Times found that Ian Telfer donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.

So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.

Our ruling

Trump said, "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

There’s a grain of truth in this claim. Clinton’s State Department was one of nine government agencies to approve Russia’s acquisition of a company with U.S. uranium assets. Nine people related the company at some point in time donated to the Clinton Foundation, but we only found evidence that one did so "while" the Russian deal was occurring. The bulk of the $145 million in donations came two years before the deal.

Trump is certainly within his right to question the indisputable links between Clinton Foundation donors and their ties to Uranium One, but Trump’s charge exaggerates the links. More importantly, his suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated, as Schweizer the author of Clinton Cash himself has admitted.

On the most basic level, Trump’s timeline is off. Most of the donations occurred before Clinton was named secretary of state.

We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.

Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled the name of the State Department’s representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. He is Jose Fernandez.

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/69ef847d-50a3-45f6-835d-944395029626

After the Fact

Breitbart responds to fact-check

Added on July 18, 2016, 5:26 p.m.

After we published this fact-check, we heard from a representative of Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer, who did not respond to our questions prior to publication. He disputed our findings, and his comments were later included in a report on Breitbart, a pro-Trump website. The Breitbart report was titled, "Epic Humiliation: Politifact (sic) Makes 13 Errors in a Single Clinton Cash Fact-Check."

We actually found only one error, which we corrected. We had misspelled the name of the State Department’s representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. He is Jose Fernandez, not Jose Hernandez.

The other objections raised by Schweizer and in the Breitbart report were either not relevant to the specifics of our fact-check or they were primarily speculation and supposition.

Here are our point-by-point responses to the Breitbart report.

1. The claim that we suggested the implications of the concern about uranium sales were not serious.

Our report did address concerns about Russian control of U.S. uranium production. But the United States produces so little uranium that the concerns were out of proportion.

2. The claim that we did not note the export of yellow cake.

We did not note the export because Uranium One still doesn't have export licenses, and the New York Times confirmed that they were not exporting at the time of the publication (in 2015). The yellowcake was shipped to Canada by a shipping company with the licenses, and most of it was returned to the United States. Finally, yellow cake is rudimentary uranium, unprocessed, not enriched and not nuclear-grade.

3. The claim that we did not mention Frank Holmes being a Uranium One investor.

Our report did in fact mention Holmes in the chart of investors.

4. The claim that we did not mention the 2009 purchase of 17 percent in Uranium One

Our report did in fact note the purchase.

5. The claim that we made assumptions about the completeness of the donations.

In this case, we literally quoted the source material from Schweizer’s book. Schweizer hasn't been able to document when the actual donations occurred, and his book does not offer evidence supporting Trump’s claim that the donations occurred "while" Clinton was secretary of state.

6. The claim that we dismissed the significance of  Clinton running for president in 2008.

Trump specified "Hillary Clinton's State Department," so that is what our fact-check examined.

7. The claim that we ignored that a company paid Bill Clinton for a speech.

Trump specified donations from nine investors, so that is what our fact-check examined.

8. The claim that we ignored that Ian Telfer's $140 million in donations were not disclosed.

Trump’s claim did not mention a lack of disclosure, so our fact-check did not examine this.

9. The claim that we took Frank Guistra at his word for having sold his shares in Uranium One.

Our report notes that we could not independently verify the sale.

10. The claim that we misinterpreted Russia's nuclear strategy.

Trump did not mention Russia’s nuclear strategy, so this was not relevant to our fact-check.