Part 2: Clinton Cash....Hillary's Reset....Indian Nukes

Clinton Cash

by Peter Schweizer

3

Hillary’s Reset 

THE RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL 

Perhaps Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin had gotten off to a rough start. When she was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary had talked tough about the Russian president. Contradicting President George W. Bush’s oft-quoted statement that he “was able to get a sense of [Putin’s] soul,” Hillary had pointedly countered that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” When asked about the comment, Putin shot back, “At a minimum, a head of state should have a head.” 

But when Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state in January 2009, dealing with Vladimir Putin would become a major part of her job. And the uranium deal in Kazakhstan, whose shareholders were sending in tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and were also providing speech making opportunities for Bill, would set the stage to bring Putin into the cast of characters. 

The uranium deal that was sealed in 2005 during Bill Clinton’s visit to Kazakhstan and then fortified by the 2007 Kazakh-approved merger would soon morph into a third transaction intersecting with some of Hillary’s most consequential and difficult national security decisions as secretary of state. And as we will see, there is no evidence that she disclosed to US government ethics officials, the White House, or her cabinet colleagues the apparent conflicts of interest at play as she steered US nuclear policy. 

In the final years of the Bush administration, relations with Moscow had cooled. The Russian incursion into neighboring Georgia, Bush’s plans to erect a missile-defense shield, and Russian pressures on Ukraine had heightened tensions between the two nuclear powers. 1 What President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had in mind was a “reset.” At Foggy Bottom, Hillary offered the Kremlin a chance to clean the slate and begin anew. 2 

Moscow was all in favor of a reset and viewed it as an opportunity to develop more trade and investment opportunities with the West. 3 And in spite of her pointed comments about Putin’s soul, Hillary’s appointment as secretary of state was generally praised in Moscow. Authorities saw her as offering a “balanced view of US relations with the Russian Federation.” 4 She was “by far not the worst” outcome for Moscow, said one official, noting that there were advisers around Obama who were “very critical of our country.” 5 Not a ringing endorsement perhaps, but Hillary was someone the Russians believed they could work with. 

At the heart of the reset was what Newsweek called “a bevy of potential business deals.” 6 These included deals involving oil and natural gas, which are the backbone of the Russian economy. 7 But not far behind were Kremlin ambitions to expand its share of the world nuclear market. Uranium, civilian nuclear power plants, and the technical services that supported them were considered a huge growth industry for Moscow. 8 In 2006 the Kremlin had approved plans “to spend $10 billion to increase Russia’s annual uranium production by 600 percent.” 9 Putin considered the nuclear energy sector “a priority branch for the country, which makes Russia a great power.” 10 Russia not only wanted to build nuclear plants around the world, it also wanted to control a large chunk of the global uranium market. 11 

But an important side note to the Russian reset was how it involved a collection of foreign investors who had poured vast sums of money into the Clinton Foundation and who continued to sponsor lucrative speeches for Bill. Those investors stood to gain enormously from the decisions Hillary made as secretary of state. 

The Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) handles all things nuclear in Russia. Unlike the US Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rosatom is not just deeply imbedded with civilian nuclear power but actually controls the Russian nuclear arsenal. 12 

Longtime Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko is a tall, lanky technocrat who served in the Komsomol, the Soviet Youth League, during the Soviet era. He went on to become energy minister and then prime minister of Russia while Bill Clinton was president of the United States. (Indeed, when Russian president Boris Yeltsin made Kiriyenko prime minister in 1998, it brought “instant endorsements” from the Clinton administration.) 13 He and his agency operate in a special way in Russia, without any independent supervision from the Russian parliament. Rosatom “is subject only to the decision making of the Kremlin,” as one nuclear scholar at UC Berkeley puts it. “Unlike the oil and gas industries, the nuclear sector is under the direct supervision of the state.” 14 

Rosatom not only built the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactors in Iran, it also supplies them with uranium. 15 Rosatom also operates in North Korea, Venezuela, and Myanmar. 16 As the agency makes clear in its annual report, it places a primacy on protecting information “constituting state secrets.” 

During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton and senior aides received numerous diplomatic cables discussing Moscow’s nuclear ambitions. In October 2009, for example, she received a cable exposing Rosatom’s plan to leverage Ukraine into a long-range supply contract with the Russian state nuclear fuel company, and its efforts to create “zones of pressure” on Eastern European governments. 17 

In December 2009 the US ambassador to Kazakhstan sent a classified cable to Washington laying out Russian efforts to exert control over Kazakh uranium markets. 18 The cable noted that Rosatom sought to control this market as part of a broader initiative to reestablish itself as a world power. The memo also stated that Russian military intelligence, the GRU, was involved in these nuclear ambitions. 19 

Even before that cable was sent, there were signs of Russian moves on the uranium market. In June 2009 Rosatom bought a stake in Uranium One. It was not a controlling stake, only 17 percent, but the Russians were just getting started. 20 

Uranium One was an inviting target. Production was booming, jumping from 2 million pounds of uranium in 2007 to 7.4 million in 2010. But Uranium One was also aggressively buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010 the Canadian company had “61 ongoing or planned projects on some 293,000 acres in Wyoming.” 21 The firm also owned ten thousand acres of uranium claims in Utah, as well as holdings in Texas and South Dakota. 22 In sum, Uranium One was projected to control up to half of US uranium output by 2015. 

In December 2009 Rosatom chief Kiriyenko appeared before the Presidium, a selection of Russian government officials. He laid out an aggressive plan to acquire uranium assets outside of Russia. “An opportunity has opened up to buy foreign assets that are profitable and, for now, not very expensive,” he said. “With this program of buying uranium deposits, we can guarantee this to any customers of ours.” Then prime minister Putin announced at the meeting that the Russian government would allocate the money for the transactions to Rosatom’s equity capital. 23 

The Kremlin’s move came at a sensitive time. Hillary Clinton was directing negotiations for the 123 Agreement with the Russian government concerning civilian nuclear energy. The 123 Agreement is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty whose name derives from the fact that it falls under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act. It requires that the United States have a 123 Agreement negotiated and in place to make nuclear cooperation possible with foreign countries. In short, as the US State Department put it, the 123 Agreement with Russia would “support commercial interests by allowing U.S. and Russian firms to team up more easily in joint ventures.” 

The pact had previously been negotiated by the Bush administration, but when Russian forces went into Georgia in 2008, the administration withdrew a request that Congress approve it. The Obama/Clinton reset meant that the agreement was back on and (along with input from the US Department of Energy) that Hillary was in charge. Congress would eventually approve the 123 Agreement in January 2011. 

In March 2010 Hillary was in Moscow for a meeting with Putin. Putin had set in motion the purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One by Rosatom only a few months earlier. During a meeting on March 19, Hillary and Putin discussed a wide variety of issues related to trade. He expressed displeasure with US trade policy, presumably because Russian companies were affected by US sanctions. Whether the Uranium One deal was discussed is not known. 

The primary purpose of Hillary’s trip was to increase pressure on Iran. Instead, Putin promised Moscow’s assistance with the completion of a civil nuclear power station by the summer. Hillary blasted the move, saying it “would be premature to go forward with any project at this time, because we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians.” 24 

As part of its reset with Moscow, the Obama administration wanted to make progress on the New START nuclear talks and sought commercial opportunities in areas like civilian nuclear power. On that front, Hillary was optimistic. “If we continue to work together, we can move beyond the problems to greater opportunities.” 

In May 2010 the Obama administration submitted the proposed text of the US-Russian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to Congress. Weeks later, Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One. To some observers in the uranium market, it all made sense. “It was no accident that Rosatom’s choice fell to Uranium One,” wrote one paper, given the uranium assets it held. 25 

Several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal. As we saw in the previous chapter, one of these, Ian Telfer, was chairman of Uranium One. A longtime mining investor and associate of Frank Giustra, Telfer made his fortune as a gold investor and has served as the chairman of the World Gold Council. 

The Clinton Foundation also failed to disclose major contributions from entities controlled by those involved in the Uranium One deal. Thus, beginning in 2009, the company’s chairman, Telfer, quietly started funneling what would become $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation through a Canadian entity he controlled called the Fernwood Foundation. 26 According to records released by the Clinton Foundation, Telfer had personally contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2007. But according to Canadian tax records, Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation donated more than $2 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state. The Clinton Foundation’s public disclosures don’t list Fernwood as a donor. 27 

In 2009 Fernwood contributed $1 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSCI). 28 In 2010 its donation was $250,000. In 2011 it gave another $600,000 and in 2012 the amount was $500,000. 29 According to Canadian tax records, nearly all of the funds CGSCI collects are transferred directly to the Clinton Foundation in New York. 30 In other words, it operates as a pass-through. 

The fact that these donations are not listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures violates the Clinton Foundation’s memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House described in chapter 1, and contradicts Hillary’s correspondence with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It also raises questions about what other undisclosed multimillion-dollar donations from foreign entities could have been channeled to the Clinton Foundation. 

The Russian uranium deal involved other major Clinton Foundation donors. Two men listed as “financial advisors” for Uranium One and the Russia deal, Robert Disbrow and Paul Reynolds, were also multimillion-dollar contributors. 31 Another important shareholder in Uranium One was US Global Investor Funds, whose CEO was Frank Holmes. 32 Holmes was not only a major contributor to the foundation, he was also the chairman of Giustra’s Endeavour Mining Capital Corp. Holmes describes himself as “an advisor to the William J. Clinton Foundation on sustainable development in countries with resource-based economies.” 33 The managing director for global affairs at Endeavour Financial during this deal was Eric Nonacs, who simultaneously served as “senior advisor” to the Clinton Foundation. Nonacs, before taking the job, had been a foreign policy adviser to Bill during his post-presidential years. 34 

As part of the merger with Uranium One, key shareholders, including Telfer and Giustra, were required to hold their shares for at least six months. 35 (Dzhakishev believes that Giustra made $300 million in the deal.) 36 Giustra’s firm, Endeavour Financial, continued to act as a financial adviser to Uranium One. In July 2008, for example, they arranged credit for the firm as part of a deal involving several Canadian investment banks. 37 In early 2008, according to Rosatom executive Vadim Zhivov, negotiations had already begun between Rosatom and Uranium One to buy a stake in the company. 38 

Was Giustra an investor in Uranium One via US Global Investor Funds? He did not return repeated calls asking for comment. It is unclear whether by 2010 Giustra was still directly involved in the deal, as he often conducts deals through shell companies. 39 

For shareholders of Uranium One, the Russian government acquisition would mean huge payouts. In addition to giving every shareholder a special one-dollar-per-share dividend, Moscow had big plans for Uranium One. 40 According to corporate records, Telfer alone had shares and options amounting to more than 1.6 million shares. 41 

“We would like just to use Uranium One as the global platform for future growth and all the future acquisitions and all M&A activity,” said Zhivov, who directed the transaction for Rosatom. 42 Moscow wanted Uranium One Inc. “to be transformed into a global growth platform.” 43 This had to sound lucrative to Canadian investors, though Zhivov admitted there was a “hard road ahead” to prove that “a Russian state-owned company can . . . play by the rules of the modern developed world.” 44 

Russia wanted the deal for commercial and strategic reasons. The Canadian investors wanted the deal because it stood to make them richer. But politics in the United States would prove critical. Because uranium is a strategic industry, the Russian purchase of a Canadian company holding massive US assets required US government approval. Playing a central role in whether approval was granted was none other than Hillary Clinton. 

When the Uranium One deal was announced in June 2010, news of the bid “panicked some shareholders and alarmed industry observers worried that the Vancouver-based company might end up serving the Kremlin’s strategic interests,” as one Canadian newspaper put it. 45 

The Kremlin went into full public relations mode. It dispatched Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak to meet with mining executives in Colorado to soothe concerns about the deal. “Do you mind some investment? It is a normal commercial operation—not something that is operating on any political guidance,” he said in an interview. “It doesn’t matter whether it is uranium or steel or oil or gas,” Kislyak said. “What is important is that the positive ties between our two countries seem to be getting more and more expanded. Politically, that is very important.” 46 

Kislyak’s distinction between business and politics is highly misleading: the funds for the Uranium One acquisition came from Putin directly and were approved by the Russian Presidium. And of course Russia has a history of using natural gas and energy exports to neighboring countries as a political tool. 47 

Four senior congressmen—Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Foreign Affairs, Spencer Bachus of Financial Services, and Howard McKeon of Armed Services —voiced grave concerns about the deal. They were troubled by Rosatom’s “activities—and the context within which it operates in Russia—[which] should raise very serious concerns for United States national security interests.” The fact that Rosatom had helped Iran in building the Bushehr nuclear power plant “should raise red flags. . . . Although Uranium One USA officials are reportedly skeptical that the transaction would result in the transfer of any mined uranium to Iran, we remain concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies through direct or secondary proliferation,” they wrote. “We believe the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” 48 

Wyoming senator John Barrasso also wrote a letter to the Obama administration raising concerns about Russian control of uranium assets in his state, citing Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and Venezuela.” 49 

In short, a bipartisan group of congressmen felt that Russia could not be trusted to allocate US uranium in keeping with US nuclear interests. Then congressman Ed Markey pushed a bill in the House with Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, “expressing disfavor of the Congress regarding the proposed agreement for cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation.” 50 Markey said, “Russia continues to train Iranian nuclear physicists, supply sensitive nuclear technology to Iran. . . . Does Russia want cooperation with the United States, or with Iran and Syria? Because it can’t have both.” 51 

In light of the obvious national security concerns, Uranium One and Rosatom officials offered concessions. Uranium One, for example, did not have an export license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) allowing it to ship uranium outside of the United States. Supporters of the deal argued, therefore, that no one should fear that American uranium might end up in, say, Iranian reactors. 52 But in correspondence with the NRC, Uranium One executives did not rule out trying to obtain an export license in the future. They could only say that “Uranium One does not intend today (and does not envision in the foreseeable future) any export of U3O8 from the United States derived from the Uranium One U.S. Facilities.” 53 

Despite the glaring concerns, the Russian majority control purchase of Uranium One was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is a small and somewhat secretive executive branch task force created in 1975 to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security. Besides the secretary of state, CFIUS includes cabinet officials such as the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security, and the treasury secretary. CFIUS wields enormous power to stop or limit investment deals. Ironically, Uranium One officials, after CFIUS approved the deal, did mention global markets as an important reason why the deal made sense. “Donna Wichers, Uranium One Senior Vice President, said her company is pushing for uranium mines in Wyoming with an eye toward growing markets both in the United States and abroad as countries plan for new nuclear power reactors. ‘We’ve got China —they’re looking at opening 500 nuclear power plants in the next 40 years; India—several hundred. . . . So you can see worldwide there is a huge demand for nuclear power.’” 54 

There were all sorts of warning signs about Russia’s push into the uranium market. For example, the US International Trade Commission was in the midst of a large investigation into allegations dating as far back as 1991 that Russia was dumping uranium on US markets to damage the American uranium industry. 55 In early 2010 Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, appeared before a congressional committee and warned about the perils of doing business with state-owned entities in Russia, stating that “criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum and precious metal markets.” He didn’t name specific Russian entities involved, but referred to the problem as “a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among governments, organized crime, intelligence services and big business figures.” He indicated that the United States needed to address the Russian instances of “bribery, fraud, violence and corrupt alliances with state actors to gain the upper hand against legitimate businesses.” 56 

In the midst of this complex and controversial transaction, which would require US cabinet–level approval, a small Canadian investment company named Salida Capital became intimately involved with the Clinton Foundation. 

According to Canadian tax records, Salida Capital received in 2010 an anonymous donation of $3.3 million into their charitable foundation (Salida Capital Foundation), which allowed the tiny firm to make the dramatic announcement that it would contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. 57 In 2010 it donated $780,220 to the Clinton Foundation. This amounted to about 90 percent of all Salida’s charitable giving that year. It was part of a multimillion-dollar commitment that would send more than $2.6 million to the Clintons between 2010 and 2012. 58 

Salida Capital also cosponsored a speech by Bill Clinton on May 21, 2010, in Calgary, Canada. While the speech was publicly listed by the Clintons as an event for “The Power Within,” a Canadian motivational-speaking organization, according to State Department documents filed by Bill Clinton’s office, sponsors for the event included Salida Capital. 

Salida Capital invests in natural resource companies, including several in the Russian-dominated portions of Ukraine. In 2010, when Salida moved aggressively into the Ukrainian market, their chief business partner in the country happened to be the personal adviser to Energy Minister Yuri Boyko, who helped create the trading company Vladimir Putin used to control the Ukrainian natural gas trade. Boyko was described in a confidential State Department cable as being “very close to Russia” and as the “point of contact for the Kremlin” on energy dealings in the country. 59 

In 2011 a company named Salida Capital would be identified in a Rosatom annual report as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear agency. 60 Is it the same firm? There is compelling evidence that it is, but we cannot say for sure. 61 

I contacted Salida Capital in Toronto on three occasions and provided it with the opportunity to deny that it is connected to the Salida Capital listed as a subsidiary of Rosatom. It has refused comment. 

The timing of events raises questions. If it were the same firm, an entity owned and controlled by Rosatom funneled millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at the very time Hillary would have been involved in deciding whether to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. 62 

But the Clintons’ fortune didn’t end there. In June, shortly after the Rosatom deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow for a particularly well-compensated speech. He was paid $500,000 to deliver remarks at an event organized by a firm called Renaissance Capital (RenCap). 63 Bill had not given a speech in Russia in over five years and then it had been for a British firm, Adam Smith International. His pay for that speech was only $195,000. 64 

RenCap, which is registered in Cyprus, is populated by former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Putin. In correspondence with the State Department seeking approval for the speech, Clinton’s office simply describes the firm as “an investment bank focusing on emerging markets.” According to Businessweek, when Putin became president of Russia in 2000, RenCap “hired several executives with connections to the Kremlin and Russian intelligence service, now known as the FSB [Russian Domestic Intelligence Service].” Yuri Kobaladze, executive director at the firm, served for thirty-two years as a KGB and SVR (the foreign intelligence arm of the Russian government) officer, retiring with the rank of general. 65 Yuri Sagaidak, the deputy general director at RenCap, was a colonel in the KGB. 66 Vladimir Dzhabarov served simultaneously as an officer in the FSB and first vice president at RenCap from 2006 to 2009. 67 

RenCap was also watching the Uranium One deal. Only three weeks before Clinton’s speech, on May 27, RenCap had been pushing Uranium One stock. “We believe the company is well positioned to provide impressive volume growth in the global sector and play the uranium spot price recovery,” RenCap wrote in a twenty-eight-page report on the company. It actively encouraged investors to buy the stock. 68 

Clinton’s hour-long, half-million-dollar speech on the theme of Russia “going global” was followed by a plenary session that included Renaissance Capital executives and senior Russian government officials.

During his Moscow visit, Bill also met with Putin himself. 

Just days earlier the FBI had made a series of arrests, breaking up a Russian spy ring. Ten sleeper agents, using encrypted data transferred through digital images, invisible ink, and a sophisticated system for transferring information by switching bags at a train station in Queens, had been broken up. Among the spy ring’s targets: a leading fundraiser for Hillary who also happened to be a Clinton friend. A Russian sleeper agent named “Cynthia Murphy” was instructed “to single out tidbits unknown publicly but revealed in private by sources close to State Department.” 69 According to the FBI, intercepted communications showed that the chief assignment of the ring would be “to search and develop ties in policy-making circles in U.S.” 70 

When Bill sat down with Putin, it didn’t take long for the subject of Russian espionage to come up. “You have come to Moscow at the exact right time,” Putin told the former president, according to the New York Times. Waving a finger at him, Putin continued, “Your police have gotten carried away, putting people in jail.” 71 In response, “Clinton appeared to chuckle.” 72 

Clinton and Putin had a close relationship. President Boris Yeltsin first appointed Putin prime minister in 1999, while Bill was still president, and they had remained in contact ever since. In January 2009, while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill had gone to Putin’s private party at the Sheraton, where he was greeted by the Russian leader as “our good friend” before cheering him with vodka shots. The pair then headed off to a private room where they “talked deep into the night.” 73 In September 2013, as the Ukrainian crisis built, Clinton offered what the Russian news agency RIA Novosti called “Rare U.S. Praise for Putin” on CNN. Clinton described the Russian leader as “very smart” and “brutally blunt.” When he was asked by CNN’s Piers Morgan if Putin ever reneged on a deal, Clinton responded: “He did not. He kept his word on all the deals we made.” 74 

Remember, for the Russian purchase of Uranium One to go through, it required approval by CFIUS, of which Hillary was a member. “We have provided all relevant information requested in the U.S., and elsewhere and we expect approval in due time,” said spokesman Dmitry Shulga. 75 

Hillary Clinton had long had a reputation as a CFIUS hawk, opposing the sale of US strategic assets to foreign governments. She had also been a consistent critic of lax reviews by that body in the past. After a Bush administration CFIUS review approved the 2005 purchase of several ports in the United States by the sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, then senator Clinton was quick to denounce it. When the Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings on the matter in early 2006, Hillary promptly assumed the role of chief prosecutor. She not only argued that the CFIUS decision was wrong, she condemned administration officials for failing to consider the national security implications of the ports deal. She was particularly concerned because the deal involved not just a foreign company, but a foreign government. “For many of us,” she said, “there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government entity.” 76 

In 2007 Hillary led the charge to pass legislation to significantly strengthen CFIUS. And during her 2008 presidential bid, it was Hillary alone among the major candidates from either party who raised the case for strengthening CFIUS as an important way to protect America’s economic sovereignty and national security. Her presidential campaign rightly described her as “an outspoken proponent of strengthening CFIUS.” 77 

When she became secretary of state, Hillary Clinton continued to support a robust CFIUS and led efforts by the panel to block Chinese companies from buying a mining business, a fiber-optic company, and even a wind farm in Oregon. 78 

But however hawkish Hillary might have been on other deals, this one sailed through. The Russian purchase of Uranium One was approved by CFIUS on October 22, 2010. Hillary’s opposition would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened. 

The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Strangely enough, when Uranium One requested approval from CFIUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold. 

In 2010, in reporting to the US government, Russian officials said they were looking to buy just slightly more than 50 percent of the company and promised “not [to] increase its share in Uranium One, Inc.” 79 But by the beginning of 2013, the Russian government moved to buy out the company’s other shareholders entirely. Today it owns the company outright. 80 [kept their word huh? DC]

The Russian purchase of a large share of America’s uranium assets raised serious national security concerns for precisely the same reasons Hillary had condemned previous deals. A foreign government would now have direct control over a very valuable commodity; the Russian government would reap hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues every year; and it would allow the Russian government to use Uranium One assets to honor supply contracts with US reactors while freeing up other uranium assets to send to more dangerous regions of the world—where Russia was already known to be involved. Lawmakers in Washington had raised these concerns. [had raised concerns? how about you stop it DC]

Still, despite a long record of publicly opposing such deals, Hillary didn’t object. Why the apparent reversal? Could it be because shareholders involved in the transactions had transferred approximately $145 million to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives? Or because her husband had profited from lucrative speaking deals arranged by companies associated with those who stood to profit from the deal? Could it be because Bill—and possibly she herself—had quietly helped build the uranium assets for the company to begin with? These questions can only be answered by Hillary herself. What is clear is that based on State Department ethics documents, she never revealed these transactions to her colleagues, the Obama White House, or to Capitol Hill. 

For Moscow, the approval was a major victory. Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, told Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that the United States would now become “a key market” for Rosatom. 81 Because Uranium One also owned the rights to those large mines in Kazakhstan, uranium flows to Russia increased. As one Uranium One official put it in a corporate presentation, the company’s operations “facilitate substantial exports of uranium to Russia.” 82 

In 2013 Rosatom announced plans to take 100 percent control of Uranium One. It didn’t even bother to ask the Obama administration for approval this time, because the transaction “involved the same parties” and the move did not technically “change the corporate structure of Uranium One.” 83 

Pravda hailed the move with an over-the-top headline: “RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY CONQUERS THE WORLD.” Taking full control of Uranium One would “consolidate control over uranium assets in the former Soviet Union and pave the way for the expansion of access to resources in Australia and South Africa.” 84 The Russian takeover of Uranium One yielded shareholders a premium price. Rosatom offered Telfer and other shareholders a 32 percent premium on the share price, yielding them millions. 85 

In the fall of 2013 Rosatom passed operational control of the Bushehr nuclear reactor to Iran, and in September Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced that “Tehran and Moscow will cooperate in the future construction of a second nuclear power plant at Bushehr,” adding that “construction work is to start soon.” 86 

Meanwhile, Uranium One made an audacious bid to mine for uranium on state land in Arizona, near the Grand Canyon. Using a shell corporation called Wate Mining, it proposed accessing the site through Navajo Nation lands. The company apparently hoped that the Navajo Nation wouldn’t notice who controlled the company, which was obscured on government forms. “The fact that the applicant failed to fully disclose ownership information does not sit well,” said the Navajo Nation Department of Justice. 87 Plans for the mine have been suspended in light of protests. 88 

Global deals involving the transfer of funds and nuclear technology were not limited to Russia. Another troubling transaction that occurred during the same period, while Hillary was in the Senate, involved characters representing India whose political interests appear to have been advanced by their friendship with the Clintons—accompanied in turn by large donations and payments.

4

Indian Nukes 

HOW TO WIN A MEDAL BY 

CHANGING HILLARY’S MIND 

In May 1998 the government of India shook the world. With a series of five underground nuclear tests, the government set off a corresponding series of political explosions. 

Code-named Operation Shakti (the word means “strength” in Sanskrit), the 58th Engineer Regiment of the Indian Army took special measures to ensure that test preparations went undetected by the United States. With its bold act, India, in the words of one of the country’s leading commentators, “acquired de facto nuclear weapon status.” 1 

For President Bill Clinton, the tests were a surprise slap in the face. Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and technologies had been a Clinton administration priority. Early in his presidency he had launched “a personal initiative to halt, roll back and eliminate the nuclear [programs] of both India and Pakistan.” 2 The tests were an embarrassing public dismissal of these efforts. 

Clinton was livid. He erupted in a “volcanic fit” when he heard the news, according to foreign policy adviser and longtime friend Strobe Talbott. 3 Clinton took the tests as a personal affront, as well as a threat to the nuclear nonproliferation and test ban treaties he was pushing. He responded with “an intense effort to threaten international isolation” unless India signed the test ban treaty and “took other steps to reduce nuclear dangers.” 4 

The nonproliferation treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970 and recognized five countries as nuclear powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China. The NPT was designed to prevent any other country from attaining nuclear weapon status. If a country signed the treaty, it would be given the benefit of access to peaceful nuclear technology. 

Clinton chose to denounce India’s nuclear tests with Chinese president Jiang Zemin at his side. (This was particularly offensive to India, which considered Beijing a regional rival.) He also lent American support to United Nations Resolution 1172, which called on India to stop testing and required them to become parties to the NPT. But most importantly, Clinton imposed a series of restrictions on the export of US nuclear technologies to India with the express purpose of “keeping the lid on Indian nuclear and ballistic-missile technology.” 5 

Clinton’s India sanctions were motivated by a strong belief in the importance of the NPT. Bill and Hillary Clinton have vigorously supported enforcing and extending the treaty. Both as first lady and then as a US senator, Hillary shared her husband’s fervent support for the NPT and the test ban treaty. 6 In a 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, then senator Clinton declared, “As President, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” 7 Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign and during her confirmation as secretary of state, she voiced continued support for staunch nonproliferation efforts. “The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the leadership needed to shore up the regime,” she said during her Senate confirmation hearings. As secretary of state she promised that the administration would “place great importance on strengthening the NPT and the nonproliferation regime in general . . . we must reinvigorate our commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear terrorism.” 8 

India had never signed the nonproliferation treaty and was not about to. But as the Clinton administration passed and the Bush administration took office in January 2001, New Delhi began thinking about getting the sanctions lifted. Hoping to make that happen they hired expensive lobbyists and encouraged Indians in the United States to build rapport with both political parties. There were also a series of large payments made at pivotal moments to the Clinton machine. Some of these payments came in the form of lucrative speeches, paid for by Indian entities with a direct interest in having the sanctions lifted. Others came in the form of donations to both Hillary’s Senate campaigns and her presidential bid, by those who could legally do so. But mostly, they came as millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation. 

Tracing the real source of some of those millions would prove impossible, but their effect on the Clintons’ policy toward India seems apparent. In the end, both Bill, who initially imposed the sanctions against the Indian government, and Hillary, who supported that policy, played a vital role in getting them lifted. Shortly after the legislation passed, the Indian government granted one of its most prestigious civilian awards to a close Clinton family friend precisely because, as they saw it, he got Hillary to support the legislation. 

Sant Chatwal might not strike one as a consummate political insider. A Sikh from India with piercing brown eyes, Chatwal arrived in the United States in 1975 by way of Ethiopia and Canada. Earlier in his life, Chatwal served in the Indian military as a jet pilot. In the United States he set about building a commercial empire of Indian restaurants and hotels, primarily in New York City. First came the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, followed by the luxurious Hampshire Hotels. Chatwal is a study in contrasts—a globe-trotting businessman with celebrity friends and high-level political connections, yet an earthy Punjabi who still enjoys eating sarson ka saag. Even after more than thirty years in the United States, he remained a staunch Indian patriot, and still refers to India as “my motherland.” 

His deep friendship with the Clintons began with a mutual love for Indian cuisine. Bill first tasted Indian food at a political fundraiser held at Chatwal’s New York City restaurant, the Bombay Palace. 9 But, as we will see, some savory financial transfers helped, too. 

Chatwal has always been exceedingly blunt about how and why he steered money in an effort to influence events in Washington. “I used to spend money on senators and congressmen,” said Chatwal. While in 1988 that “investment” had been in Michael Dukakis, Chatwal “next started betting on various presidents” and “happened to click with Clinton.” 10 The former governor of Arkansas was exceedingly thankful. Chatwal says Clinton offered him whatever post he wanted once he was elected president, but Chatwal said he simply wanted closer US-Indian relations. When Hillary ran for the Senate in 2000, Chatwal became one of her largest soft-money donors. 11 

By the time Bill left the Oval Office in 2001, Chatwal was firmly in the Clinton's inner circle. Bill appointed him a trustee of the Clinton Foundation, an appointment reserved only for longtime friends and large financial benefactors. Chatwal had lavished money on the Clintons, including hundreds of thousands in soft-money donations and millions in campaign funds raised, and he continued his largesse once Bill was a private citizen. Chatwal helped arrange for millions of dollars in lucrative speaking fees and steered additional millions to the Clinton Foundation. 12 When Hillary ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, he was co-chair of her presidential exploratory committee. He even received that most prized of gifts in the Clinton universe: an invitation to attend Chelsea’s wedding. 

Sant Chatwal’s son Vikram also became a Clinton benefactor. Widely known for his partying ways, Vikram became Hillary’s 2008 campaign bundler. 13 Tooling around New York in an Aston Martin, he was known to run up large bar tabs and date everyone from Lindsay Lohan to various supermodels. Like his father a committed Sikh, he was known around town as the “Turban Cowboy.” 

Vikram considers the Clintons close friends. According to the New York Observer, “‘I know him [Bill Clinton] very well,’ he said of the former President. He added that the two men have often sat down and talked about books and Gandhi, as well as, he said, ‘women and models I’ve dated. He, like any man in the world, appreciates beauty.’” 14 

When Vikram got married in India in 2006, Bill Clinton attended the wedding. Guests “were welcomed by dancing eunuchs, elephants painted entirely white and whitewashed men wearing angel wings on white horses.” 15 The Clintons also attended Sant Chatwal’s other son’s wedding, a more calm affair at Tavern on the Green in New York in 2002. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, Sant Chatwal has a history of legal trouble involving financial transactions and has declared bankruptcy on at least one occasion. In 1995 he came under a cloud of legal suspicion concerning the bilking of millions from Indian banks. In the United States he was chased by the IRS and the New York State government for $30 million in unpaid taxes. 16 In a visit to India with Clinton in May 2001, Chatwal was arrested and charged with defrauding the New York City branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994. “He posted bail equivalent to $32,000, then fled India, boarding a flight to Vienna, despite an attempt by authorities to detain him” reported the New York Daily News. 17 

In 1997 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) “sued Chatwal over his role as a director and a guarantor of unpaid loans at the failed First New York Bank for Business,” the Washington Post reported. Regulators were frustrated that Chatwal claimed he couldn’t repay the money (reported to be “in excess of $12 million”), despite the fact that he continued to live in a New York penthouse worth millions of dollars. 18 

Three years later, with no settlement on the horizon, Chatwal entertained guests in his lavish penthouse for Hillary’s Senate campaign, raising $500,000. 19 On December 18, 2000, just a few months after the fundraiser (while the Clintons were still in the White House), the FDIC “abruptly settled” the case against Chatwal, according to the Washington Post, allowing him to pay a mere $125,000 and walk away. 

The Chatwals undoubtedly enjoyed the perks and access that came with contributing and raising money for politicians like the Clintons. But what Sant Chatwal wanted for all that money extended far beyond the ordinary transactions that take place in Washington. He wanted to influence American policy toward India, particularly as it related to the sensitive area of nuclear technology. He openly admitted that he “spent tons of money, time and effort to make sure that the [Indian-US] nuclear deal goes through.” 20 Some of that money was spent in India, where, according to a leaked diplomatic cable between the US embassy in Delhi and the US State Department, at least two ministers and several members of parliament were claimed to have been paid off, with reports of “two chests containing cash” ready for use as “pay-offs” to win support for the Indian-US nuke deal. Chatwal was alleged to be involved, but he maintains the allegation is baseless. 21 What we do know is that millions were spent on cultivating the relationship with the Clintons, who not only received money directly through lucrative speaking deals, but also reaped millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation. 

On July 18, 2005, President George W. Bush and visiting Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh signed a letter of intent at the White House to allow India access to US nuclear technology. The agreement was part of a Bush administration policy to work closely with India to serve as a counterbalance to China. But the agreement required Congress to amend US law and make a special exception for India. 

The plan met immediate criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans both argued it would lead to greater nuclear proliferation by rewarding a country that had violated the NPT. Remarkably silent during this debate was Hillary Clinton, who not only sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but was also a senior member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, which dealt specifically with nuclear proliferation issues. 

In September 2005 Bill Clinton flew on Frank Giustra’s plane from Uzbekistan to Lucknow, India. The capital city of the state of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was not Mumbai or any of India’s other cosmopolitan cities. Clinton’s visit set off an intense flurry of local interest and activity. The road from the airport to his hotel was “freshly tarred” for his arrival and party workers hung banners along the road praising Clinton’s visit. Along for the ride were Giustra, Doug Band, fundraiser Tim Phillips, and Sant Chatwal, who had made the arrangements. 22 

Clinton and his companions checked into the Taj, a palatial hotel with graceful pillars on the banks of the Gomti River in the heart of the city’s business district. Bill’s six-person delegation had two entire floors to themselves and enjoyed a large feast with evening entertainment. Before the festivities began, Clinton joined Chatwal for a private meeting where he was introduced to an obscure member of the Indian parliament named Amar Singh. 23 

Amar Singh has an easy swagger and a broad grin, marking a flamboyant manner and a combative attitude that has suited him well in the sharp-elbowed world of Indian politics. (He once got into a fistfight on the floor of the Indian parliament.) Heavyset, with thick glasses and thinning hair, Singh has another notable quality. His “access to big money is . . . legendary,” according to the Indian press. 24 

Singh would be implicated in a number of financial and vote-buying scandals in Indian politics. In 2011 he was indicted on charges that he bought votes in parliament to secure the nuclear deal. 25 A trial was never held. 

What Singh discussed with Clinton and Chatwal was never made public. They met for about an hour, but in that short span of time a close collaboration and friendship between the Indian politico and both of the Clintons began. 

After the meeting, the three men headed off for a big bash at the state chief minister’s bungalow. According to reports, the “bullet proof dining hall” was outfitted with twenty-six air conditioners and the event included 150 members of India’s elite—including Bollywood stars, industrialists, and politicians—who dined on delicacies while enjoying live performances. 26 There were dancers and music from jazz fusion to a song titled “Sexy Rocksy Chicago Girl.” 27 

Despite having only just met, Clinton and Singh offered immediate and enthusiastic praise for one another. Singh took to the podium to praise Clinton for his “immense love for India” and proposed that he be granted Indian citizenship. 28 Clinton then rose and talked about his love for India and addressed the host as “friend Amar Singh.” The former president then publicly extended an invitation for Singh to attend the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York in a few days as his guest. 

Clinton spent fifteen hours in Lucknow and then left. Opposition parties denounced the lavish party and criticized Singh and state officials for, in the words of one Indian newspaper, “hosting a mega bash for former U.S. President Bill Clinton at a time when hundreds were dying in the State due to Japanese encephalitis.” 29 Singh was openly triumphant, explaining to the media how Clinton’s visit helped his party “score over its rivals.” 30 

Clinton’s visit was a major coup for Singh. Asked later how he managed to get Clinton to visit his town, Singh said, “I would say he is a charming man and very kind to lesser mortals like me. I don’t see any other reason for him to take this trouble.” 31 

Following their brief meeting Singh was immediately—and mysteriously—elevated in Clinton World. Singh took Bill Clinton up on his invitation to attend CGI in New York. The massive gabfest was attended by thousands of politicians, entrepreneurs, and so-called deep thinkers. During the Cold War, the Soviet hierarchy was reflected in its arrangement on Lenin’s Tomb during the annual May Day parade. In the Clinton universe, the hierarchy was reflected in the seating chart at CGI; it allowed people to figure out who was in and out of the Clinton orbit. In 2005 Singh not only attended the Global Initiative, he was granted a place at the head table. It was a remarkable elevation for a man who was in all other respects a complete unknown. As one Indian-American publication put it when they interviewed him after the Initiative meeting, Singh “could not explain why the Clintons gave him space at the head table.” He told them, 

If they let me to sit on the head table, the same question was asked to me by the prime minister of Mauritius—which country are you heading? I said I belong to Uttar Pradesh and am a humble political worker. They were also astonished. . . . So, I don’t know what it is. [Bill] Clinton is the best person to answer this question why he gave me that kind of honor. 32 

Following the Clinton confab, Singh had a private dinner with the Clintons at their home in New York. When asked, Singh refused to say who else was at the dinner. During the visit Singh said he cultivated his relationship with Hillary Clinton. “I met Madame Clinton and in spite of her busy schedule, she was kind enough to give me considerable amount of time on one-on-one meeting,” said Singh. 33 (Apparently he came bearing gifts; he gave the senator from New York perfume oils in a Taj Mahal presentation case.) Singh’s relationship with the Clintons also drew the interest of the Indian media, which was well aware of his antics, and noted that he “seems to dote on the Clintons.” 34 

In 2006 a bill was introduced in Congress called the Henry J. Hyde United States–India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. Its purpose: to finalize an agreement that would gradually lift restrictions on nuclear trade with India. Hillary was both a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a co-chair of the Senate’s India Caucus, which a group of senators formed to work together with Indian government officials to improve US-India ties. But she showed no immediate favor for the Hyde Act as it started to make its way through Congress. The Times of India noted in 2006 that “India could be looking at the possibility of a Democrat presidency, Hillary Clinton, Obama, or anyone else—friends of India doubtless, but perhaps opponents of the nuclear deal.” 35 

Hillary supported a series of amendments that would impose stricter terms on the Indian government. These included three amendments offered by Senators Barbara Boxer, Byron Dorgan, and Russell Feingold. One was a “killer amendment” that would have effectively gutted the bill by capping India’s fissile production. But that amendment failed. The initial legislation passed, but there would be additional legislation that would need to be signed, and Hillary’s role was central in getting that approved. Hillary was still a reluctant and questionable supporter of the bill, prompting a headline in the Indian American media that the community was “upset” with her stance on the issue. 36 As the New York Times reported, it was Hillary “whose support is viewed by Indian-American leaders as crucial to winning broader Democratic backing for the plan.” 37 

Up to this point the Clinton Foundation had experienced only limited public success in securing contributions from Indians. But now, those with a keen interest in seeing the nuclear deal approved began steering money to the Clintons. 

Indian industrialists and elites, who could not contribute to Hillary’s political campaigns, much less vote for her, started making highly publicized appearances at Clinton campaign fundraising events. In June 2007 Chatwal put together a dinner for Clinton featuring Indian billionaires Srichand Hinduja and Lakshmi Mittal. The fundraisers targeted Indians who were now American citizens or who had permanent status. “They [Hinduja and Mittal] can’t give money,” noted Chatwal. “It’s to bring a little attraction.” The attraction of course was for Indians in the United States who could donate, and who might want to do business with these industrialists. 38 These introductions are worth a great deal to those in a position to exploit them. 

Hinduja and Mittal couldn’t donate to Hillary’s presidential campaign, but they could and did write large checks to the Clinton Foundation. (Mittal contributed between $1 million and $5 million.) Indeed, India quickly became a rich vein of Clinton Foundation support. In Washington, the Confederation of Indian Industry hired lobbyists to push for a nuclear deal; at the same time, they sent the Clinton Foundation a check for between $1 million and $5 million. 39 (These donations were revealed only after Hillary’s nomination as secretary of state, and while the foundation is no longer required to disclose donors since she left office, once the nuclear deal was sealed such donors appeared to cease their generosity.) The Hindustan Construction chairman and managing partner, Ajit Gulabchand, donated money while in New York in late September 2007. 40 Today Hindustan Construction is involved in several nuclear-power construction projects in India. And there were mysterious donations never really accounted for—as we will see. 

By the summer of 2008 Hillary’s presidential bid had failed and the United States Nuclear Cooperation Approval Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (H.R. 7081)—a bill finalizing the export of nuclear technologies to India—required action in the US Senate. Hillary had endured a bruising presidential nomination fight against Senate colleague Barack Obama, who would now become the Democratic standard-bearer. But when it came to the nuclear deal, Indian officials still looked to Hillary. According to Professor Vijay Prashad of Trinity College in Connecticut, “Obama’s caution about the deal put the fear of failure through elite circles in New Delhi, and so pressure mounted to get Washington to act. Senator Hillary Clinton’s nod was considered to be essential.” 41 

Notably enough, the most important Clinton advisers on nuclear proliferation matters issued blistering criticisms of the nuclear deal. Strobe Talbott, a longtime friend of both Bill and Hillary who had served in the State Department during Bill’s presidency, wrote scathingly that with the terms of the agreement, “the [Bush] administration granted India almost all the privileges of an NPT member, especially with regard to helping India develop its civilian nuclear power industry. . . . In return, the United States (and the world) received nothing in the form of concrete Indian steps toward nuclear restraint in its military programs.” The deal was “really a step toward a breakdown in the international nonproliferation regime.” 42 

Robert Einhorn, Hillary’s adviser on nuclear proliferation during the 2008 presidential bid, was also withering in his criticisms of the deal, which he strongly opposed. Einhorn had also served in the State Department during Bill’s presidency, and Hillary would tap him in 2009 to handle proliferation issues during her tenure as secretary of state. Einhorn called the deal “a radical departure from longstanding legal obligations and policies that precluded nuclear cooperation with states not party to the Nonproliferation Treaty.” 43 

In short, the agreement severely threatened the NPT that Bill and Hillary themselves had strongly supported. As the Times of India put it, “Why is this deal important? Because for the first time, someone has decided to let India have its cake and eat it too. You stay out of the NPT, keep your weapons, refuse full scope safeguards, and yet get to conduct nuclear commerce in a system that is dead against such a formulation. That’s the bottom line of this deal.” 44 

It was for this reason that additional longtime Clinton friends and allies, like Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, also opposed the 2008 nuclear deal. In an apocalyptic New York Times op-ed piece, Tauscher warned that “the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—for 50 years, the bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons—would be shredded and India’s yearly nuclear weapons production capability would likely increase from 7 bombs to 40 or 50.” She continued: “The Indian nuclear deal threatens international security not only by undermining our nuclear rules, but also by expanding India’s nuclear weapons program. That’s because every pound of uranium that India is allowed to import for its power reactors frees up a pound of uranium for its bomb program.” 45 

A few months after her piece, Tauscher was tapped by Hillary to serve as her under secretary of state for arms control and international security at the State Department. 46 

Back in 2008 Bill was paid $150,000 to give a satellite video address to the India Today Group, a media conglomerate whose chairman, Aroon Purie, was strongly in favor of the nuclear deal. 47 According to the Clintons’ financial disclosures, required by Senate ethics rules, Bill had not given a paid speech in India for more than five years. But as the Indian nuclear deal vote loomed, he sat down in his Harlem office and made comments about world events to a live audience of Indian corporate and government officials gathered at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi. 48 

Clinton discussed several subjects, including the looming US-Indian nuclear deal, and reassured the audience that while “some Democrats have some questions about the agreement . . . the new government tends to honor agreements of the previous one.” In other words, if the deal was approved in Congress in March 2008, the next president, whether Republican or Democrat, would likely honor the agreement. 

As the drive to get the Clintons on board mounted, Sant Chatwal helped organize one of Bill’s biggest public speaking paydays, arranging for him to receive $450,000 to speak at a London charity event. The speech, noted the Chicago Tribune, brought him $170,000 more than he “charged for ordinary overseas for-profit appearances.” 49

Apparently the father of the hostess was surprised by how much Bill was paid. “If we had been charged less, we could have given a bit more” to charity, he said. Bill’s fee accounted for 30 percent of the $1.5 million raised at the event for global relief efforts. 50 

In late September 2008, with the fate of H.R. 7081 still very much in question, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh arrived in New York and met with a core group to discuss the fate of the nuclear cooperation deal. Huddled together in the Kennedy Rooms at the Palace Hotel, Manmohan Singh plotted strategy with Chatwal, Amar Singh, and others. 51 

Hillary had not been a supporter of the bill; indeed, her closest aides were all publicly opposed to it. But in September 2008, as the bill’s fate hung in the balance, Amar Singh sat down for a two-hour dinner in Washington with Hillary. Opposition to the bill had come primarily from Democrats. Hillary had supported the “killer amendment” two years earlier. It was even possible that the Senate might not vote on the bill. Yet in the days following, Singh expressed confidence based on what he heard from Hillary that the deal would go through. 52 

Having grown accustomed to the deal-making and influence-buying ways of the Indian parliament, Singh was open with the Indian media about what transpired in New York. Hillary Clinton probably considered herself fortunate that his comments were not reported in the American media. According to Singh, Hillary reassured him that Democrats would not hinder the passage of the India-US civil nuclear agreement through the US Congress. 53 When Indian journalist Aziz Haniffa asked if Senator Clinton “has promised and pledged to give all the support and try to pass [the deal] through in the Congress,” he said yes, adding, “because of the Clintons I am close to the Democrats.” 54 

Five Democratic senators opposed to the bill—Robert Byrd, Jeff Bingaman, Daniel Akaka, Russ Feingold, and Tom Harkin—blocked a vote. Amendments like those introduced in 2006, which Hillary had voted for, were reintroduced. This time, however, according to Indian activists who wanted to force a vote, Hillary’s office was “working closely” with them. 55 

The vote was called, and the bill was passed. “The passage by the United States Senate was the last step in securing this historic accord,” as one of the leaders in the effort to secure the deal put it. He even called it “the greatest moment in Indian-American political history.” 56 

In the end, Hillary pushed for the passage of the Indian nuclear deal, despite the public opposition of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions. As secretary of state, she would talk about her commitment to creating a “21st century version of the NPT,” while also insisting that “the NPT will neither be altered nor replaced.” But that is precisely what her efforts on behalf of the Indian nuclear deal had done. 

Weeks after the vote, Hillary was nominated to be secretary of state by the newly elected Barack Obama. Part of the agreement struck with the Obama transition team was a requirement that the Clinton Foundation reveal the names of those who had donated money to the Foundation in the past and going forward. 

One of those listed was Amar Singh, the Indian politician who had risen so quickly in Clinton World. The mention of his name got scant attention in US media, but those in India who tracked politics took immediate notice. The Clinton Foundation revealed that Singh had given between $1 million and $5 million. But there was a slight problem: based on Indian government financial disclosures, Singh’s net worth was approximately $5 million. If true, that meant Singh had given between 20 and 100 percent of his entire net worth to the Clinton Foundation! 

When the Times of India asked Singh about the huge donation, he shrugged it off. “I have nothing to say,” he told them. “I won’t deny anything.” Pressed further, Singh responded cryptically that “the payment could have been made by someone else on his behalf.” 57 

The payment or contribution was revealed smack in the middle of a session of the Indian parliament. Members of the opposition parties were up in arms. They mocked Singh’s alleged generosity. “He would be a saint or a mahatma to make such a gesture,” said political observer Vishwanath Chaturvendi. 58 A core group of senior government ministers, concerned about the appearance of the payment or contribution, called Singh in to explain. Singh apparently told them he had not given the money “and no cheque could be traced to him.” When asked why he was listed as a donor, he said “maybe” it was because he had facilitated the payment and therefore it “erroneously” appeared in the records. Singh never explained where the money came from. Government ministers were reportedly concerned that the whole episode might result in a criminal inquiry because of the “insinuation that Amar could have swung the Democrats’ support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal as a quid pro quo.” 59 

Members of Singh’s political party denied that the money came from them. “The party has not donated any such money,” declared Mohan Singh, a member of parliament (and no relation). 60 

In New York, the Clintons were stone quiet. Hillary was preparing for the confirmation hearings and Bill hadn’t said anything. Amar Singh refused to give more interviews about the matter. 

One of Singh’s colleagues offered an explanation: the politician put wealthy friends in touch with the Clintons and was mistakenly given the credit: “Some of them may have mentioned Singh’s name while making contributions which found its way into the records.” 61 But this seems highly unlikely. Donations to the foundation would come via wire transfer or check—presumably not in cash. So the foundation likely would have known where the funds came from. Yet the Clinton Foundation has never explained their origin. Nor has it ever been determined who precisely donated the money. While donors connected to the Russian uranium deal such as Ian Telfer’s Fernwood Foundation never had their donations revealed, in this case the donation was revealed but didn’t appear to be accurate as to the true source of the funds. 

What is known is that the Indian government rewarded many of those who helped clinch the deal and got the Clintons to support it. Securing the nuclear deal was a profound victory for elements in India who saw it as an important step forward in becoming a nuclear power. When the bill passed the Senate on October 2, it was Chatwal who made the first call to the Indian prime minister with the “fantastic” news. 

For his diligent work in securing passage of the bill, in early 2010 Sant Chatwal was presented by the Indian government with the Padma Bhushan Award, one of the country’s most prestigious civilian honors. “He played an important role in getting Hillary Clinton to support the nuclear deal,” said Sanjaya Baru, who was a media adviser to the Indian prime minister. “He is close to the Clintons. That is why he got the Padma [Bhushan] award.” 62 

Chatwal explained that he had worked hard to secure the deal. In a series of Indian media interviews, Chatwal noted that Hillary had changed her position on the issue and boasted about the role he played. At first, back in 2006, Chatwal said, “Even my close friend Hillary Clinton was not in favor of the deal then.” 63 But then he began working with her: “But when I put the whole package together, she also came on board.” He continued, “In politics nothing comes free. You have to write cheques in the American political system,” Chatwal said. “I know the system. I had to work very hard. So I did as much as I could.” 64 In another interview he bluntly explained, “It took me four years and millions of dollars, which I paid out of my own pocket. I am very proud of that because I love my motherland.” 65 

No one appears to have asked them about these candid remarks. 

In September 2011 Amar Singh was arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act for bribing three members of parliament during a crucial 2008 vote related to the Indian nuclear deal. In July of that year the Left Party had pulled out of the ruling coalition over the nuclear deal, which it strongly opposed. The ruling coalition, which included Singh’s party, needed to prove it had enough votes to govern. On July 22, hours before the trust vote, large rolls of cash had allegedly been doled out by Singh, according to Indian authorities. Singh was later arrested and placed in Tihar Jail, one of the largest prison complexes in the world. While no trial was ever held, he was expelled from his political party and has retired from politics, at least for now. 66 

In April 2013 Vikram Chatwal, the Turban Cowboy, was arrested on heroin and cocaine charges. Security staff at the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, airport reportedly found half a gram of cocaine and six grams of heroin in his underwear. 67 

On April 17, 2014, Sant Chatwal stood in the Federal District Courthouse in Brooklyn and pleaded guilty to having “funneled more than $180,000 in illegal contributions between 2007 and 2011 to three federal candidates,” including Hillary Clinton. He also pled guilty to witness tampering. 68 Prosecutors alleged that Chatwal “used his employees, business associates, and contractors who performed work on his hotels . . . to solicit campaign contributions on Chatwal’s behalf in support of various candidates for federal office and PACs, collect these contributions, and pay reimbursements for these contributions, in violation of the Election Act.” 69 

During the course of the federal investigation, FBI agents recorded Chatwal discussing the flow of money to politicians. He said without the cash, “nobody will even talk to you.” He added, “that’s the only way to buy them.” 70 

Chatwal also pleaded guilty to interfering with a grand jury investigation by telling a witness that “he and his family should not talk to FBI or IRS agents,” or if they did to lie about it. “Never, never” admit to reimbursements, he told them. Later, he allegedly told the person, “cash has no proof.” 71 

While those who transferred cash in an effort to secure the nuclear deal have all faced legal jeopardy for one reason or another, the recipients of those transfers have moved on. The Clintons have never explained who donated the millions the foundation attributed to Amar Singh. And they have never discussed the role Sant Chatwal and his flow of money might have played in getting Hillary to change her views on the nuclear deal. Indeed, although Chatwal was a longtime member of the Clinton Foundation board of trustees, since his admission of guilt the foundation has erased any mention of him from the Clinton Foundation website.

next

The Clinton Blur (I)

notes

CHAPTER 3: HILLARY’S RESET 

1. Strobel, Warren, and Jonathan Landay, “Russia’s Dispute with Bush Could Strain G8 Talks,” Seattle Times, June 1, 2007, http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003730264_putin01.html. Finn, Peter, “Putin Threatens Ukraine on NATO,” Washington Post, February 13, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201658.html. Goldgeier, James, “The ‘Russia Reset’ Was Already Dead; Now It’s Time for Isolation,” Washington Post, March 2, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/02/the-russia-reset-was-already-dead-now-its-time-for-isolation/. 

2. Lowry, Rich, “The Russian Reset to Nowhere,” National Review Online, March 7, 2014, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372817/russian-reset-nowhere-rich-lowry. 

3. Mankoff, Jeffrey, “The Russian Economic Crisis,” Council on Foreign Relations, Special Report no. 53 (April 2010), http://www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfr.org%2Fcontent%2Fpublications%2Fattachments%2FRussian_Economy_CSR53.pdf&ei=ORAGVJmwIsLwgwTxloLgCA&usg=AFQjCNFhANrjMwQyKcHStW5PkjpDT1FQzA&sig2=l4jMjHA_DU120z8jlUmzbQ. 

4. Gornostayev, Dmitriy, “Clinton ‘By Far Not the Worst’ for U.S. Secretary of State,” Novosti Press Agency, November 23, 2008, http://themoderatevoice.com/24713/clinton-by-far-not-the-worst-for-us-secretary-of-state-novosti-of-russia/. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Owen, Matthews, “How Obama Bought Russia’s (Expensive) Friendship,” Newsweek, June 24, 2010. 

7. Matthews, Owen, “Putin Backs a Major Thaw in Russian Foreign Policy,” Newsweek, June 12, 2010, http://www.newsweek.com/putin-backs-major-thaw-russian-foreign-policy-72929. 

8. Mankoff, “The Russian Economic Crisis.” Åslund, Anders, and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “Why It’s in the US Interest to Establish Normal Trade Relations with Russia,” Peterson Institute for International Economics (2011), http://photos.state.gov/libraries/russia/231771/PDFs/Peterson-Institute-Paper.pdf. 

9. “Atomic Castling: Kremlin Makes First Moves to Consolidate Nuclear Sector,” Russian Life, May/June 2006. 

10. Weir, Fred, “Russia Plans Big Nuclear Expansion,” Christian Science Monitor, July 17, 2007. 

11. Paxton, Robin. “Russia Looks beyond U.S. to Conquer Uranium Markets,” Reuters, December 10, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/10/uranium-russia-idUSGEE5B60HS20091210. 

12. Rosatom, “Nuclear Weapons Complex,” page published April 19, 2010, http://www.rosatom.ru/en/about/activities/nuclear_weapons/. 

13. Simes, Dimitri K., “Russia’s Crisis, America’s Complicity,” National Interest, Winter 1998. 

14. Grigoriadis, Theocaris, “Nuclear Power Contracts and International Cooperation: Analyzing Innovation and Social Distribution in Russian Foreign Policy,” in Responding to a Resurgent Russia: Russian Policy and Responses from the European Union and the United States, edited by Vino Aggarnal and Kristi Govella (New York: Springer, 2012), http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-6667-4. 

15. Tran, Mark, “Iran to Gain Nuclear Power as Russia Loads Fuel into Bushehr Reactor,” The Guardian, August 13, 2010, http://www.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2010%2Faug%2F13%2Firan-nuclear-power-plant-russia. 

16. “Russia Uranium Plans May Include N. Korea,” UPI, March 29, 2007, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/EnergyResources/2007/03/29/Russia-uranium-plans-may-include-N-Korea/UPI-23571175193174/. Rosatom, “Russia Will Build a NPP and Research Reactor in Venezuela,” press release, October 15, 2010, http://www.rosatom.ru/en/presscentre/highlights/f71874804452bdaa90e3b265d4d5340b. Jagan, Larry, “Myanmar Drops a Nuclear ‘Bombshell,’” Asia Times, May 24, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE24Ae02.html. Khlopkov, Anton, and Dmitri Konukhov, “Russia, Myanmar and Nuclear Technologies,” Center for Energy and Security Studies, June 29, 2011, http://ceness-russia.org/data/doc/MyanmarENG.pdf. World Nuclear Association, “Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries,” October 2014, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/Emerging-Nuclear-Energy-Countries/. 

17. US Department of State, Embassy in Brussels, “Russia Flexes Muscles on Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Supply,” unclassified memo, WikiLeaks, October 15, 2009, https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BRUSSELS1385_a.html. 

18. Medetsky, Anatoly, “Rosatom Gets $465M to Buy Uranium Assets,” Moscow Times, December 23, 2009, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/rosatom-gets-465m-to-buy-uranium-assets/396701.html. 

19. US Department of State, Embassy in Astana, “Kazakhstan: Russian Hand in Kazatomprom Drama?” unclassified memo, WikiLeaks, December 22, 2009, https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ASTANA2197_a.html. 

20. Humber, Yuriy, and Maria Kolesnikova, “Russia to Acquire 17% Stake in Canada’s Uranium Ore,” Bloomberg.com, http://www.armz.ru/media/File/facts/ARMZ-U1/Bloomberg.pdf. 

21. Barber, D. A., “Hot Rocks: Hidden Cost and Foreign Ownership of ‘Clean’ Nuclear Fuel Emerging,” Huffington Post, March 30, 2010. 

22. Fahys, Judy, “Uranium Company Deal Nearly Done,” Salt Lake Tribune, December 13, 2010, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50850101-76/uranium-company-utah-deal.html.csp. 

23. Medetsky, “Rosatom Gets $465M to Buy Uranium Assets.” 

24. Dombey, Daniel, and Isabel Gorst, “Putin Vexes US over Iran Nuclear Power,” Financial Times, March 18, 2010, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dba69714-329b-11df-bf20-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39XlLmgqe. 

25. Kosharna, Olga, “Nuclear Cooperation with Ukraine Proceeding According to Russia’s Plan,” Zerkalo Nedeli (Ukraine), October 23, 2010. 

26. See Canadian Charities reporting; for each year, follow the “Full List,” Section C.3, Qualified Donees Worksheet at http://www.craarc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010returnlist-eng.action?b=855883583RR0001&n=Fernwood+Foundation&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.craarc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresulteng.action%3Fk%3DFernwood%2BFoundation%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue. 

27. “Clinton Foundation Donors,” Wall Street Journal Online , December 18, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_clintondonor_20081218.html. 

28. “Qualified Donees—Fernwood Foundation—2009,” Canada Revenue Agency, http://www.craarc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form21gifts-eng.action?b=855883583RR0001&fpe=2009-03- 31&n=Fernwood+Foundation&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Ft3010form21- eng.action%3Fb%3D855883583RR0001%26amp%3Bfpe%3D2009-03- 31%26amp%3Bn%3DFernwood%2BFoundation%26amp%3Br%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.craarc.gc.ca%253A80%252Febci%252Fhaip%252Fsrch%252Fbasicsearchresulteng.action%253Fk%253DFernwood%252BFoundation%2526amp%253Bs%253Dregistered%2526amp%253Bp%253D1%2526amp%253Bb%253Dtrue. 

29. For the reporting periods of March 31, 2009, to March 31, 2012, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative functioned as a pass-through to the Clinton Foundation. For each of these years, the average ratio of charitable donations to total expenditures was 0.88, thus 88 cents of every dollar given to CGSGI went to the Clinton Foundation. The ratio was significantly lower in 2013, but even in that year, 100 percent of monies donated went to the Clinton Foundation, which is true of all years discussed. These figures are obtained by comparing figures from Form T3010’s Schedule 2 and Schedule 6 (Lines 5000–5010) for the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010returnlist-eng.action? b=846028819RR0001&n=Clinton+Giustra+Enterprise+Partnership+%28Canada%29&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.craarc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresulteng.action%3Fk%3DClinton%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue. 

30. “Qualified Donees—Fernwood Foundation—2010.” 

31. “Clinton Foundation Donors.” 

32. US Global Investors Funds—Form N-Q, report, May 25, 2011, http://pdf.secdatabase.com/714/0001003715-11-000272.pdf. “Our Team,” U.S. Global Investors, http://www.usfunds.com/about-us/our-team/. 

33. “Our Team.” 

34. See, for example, the Endeavour Financial Corporation Investor Presentation, January 2009, p. 14. 

35. See “Arrangement Agreement between SRX Uranium One Inc. and Urasia Energy Ltd.,” February 11, 2007. 

36. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9Ze93MxqaQKPVHLkKmVpeQ; translation by Dr. David Meyer. 

37. “Uranium One Signs Credit Agreement and Provides Operational Update,” Market News Publishing, July 2, 2008, http://business.highbeam.com/1758/article-1G1-180844352/uranium-one-signs-credit-agreement-and-provides-operational. 

38. Terentieva, Alexandra, “Mike Hitchen Online: I On Global Trends,” I On Global Trends, March 31, 2010, http://www.ionglobaltrends.com/2010/03/mining-russias-insatiable-hunger-for.html#.VFPFEeed6Ex. 

39. “Where Eight Renowned Investors Think Commodity Prices Are Going,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 20, 2013, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/where-eight-renowned-investors-thinkcommodity-prices-are-going/article11435677/ (accessed 2014). Hoffman, Andy, and Sinclair Stewart, “How to (Still) Get Rich in M i n i n g , ” Globe and Mail (Toronto), May 19, 2007, Globeadvisor.com, https://secure.globeadvisor.com/newscentre/article.html?/servlet/GIS.Servlets.WireFeedRedirect? cf=sglobeadvisor/config_blank&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20070519&archive=gam&slug=RCOVER19. 

40. Uranium One, Inc., “Uranium One to Acquire Two More Kazakh Mines from ARMZ and to Pay Special Dividend to Minority Shareholders of at Least US$1.06 per Share,” news release via Canada Newswire, June 8, 2010; see Canadian System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (Sedar), Search Public Database. 

41. Uranium One, Inc., “Notice of Special Meeting of Shareholders and Management: Information Circular for a Special Meeting of Shareholders to Be Held on August 31, 2010, Relating to, among Other Things, a Related Party Transaction between JSC Atomredmetzoloto Its Affiliates and Uranium One, Inc.,” August 3, 2010, p. 40. See SEDI, “Uranium One 2010–2011, Insider Transaction Detail.” 

42. Bouw, Brenda, “Russia Boosts Stake in Uranium One,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 8, 2010, http://www.theprovince.com/business/Russian+faces+hard+sell+uranium+control/3378184/story.html?__federated=1. “The Global Intelligence Files—Russia 100628,” WikiLeaks, May 29, 2013, https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/66/661462_russia-100628-.html. 

43. “6.3 Interaction with Uranium One, Inc.,” JSC Atomredmetzoloto, 2011 Annual Report, 45. 

44. “Russian Uranium Giant ARMZ Now Set to Control 50 percent of US Uranium Output,” Australian Uranium News, December 6, 2010, http://australianuraniumquicksearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/russian-uranium-giant-armz-now-set-to.html. 

45. ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., “ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. Announces Acquisition of 51% Interest in Uranium One Inc.,” news release, June 8, 2010, ARMZ.ru, http://www.armz.ru/eng/press/news/?id=209. Saunders, Doug, “Russian Takeover of Uranium One a Benefit, Execs Say,” Globe and Mail (Toronto), June 27, 2010, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/russian-takeoverof-uranium-one-a-benefit-execs-say/article1389805/. 

46. Finley, Bruce, “Russian Company Seeks Control of Canadian Uranium-mining Firm Operating in Rockies,” Denver Post, October 20, 2010, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16382080#ixzz32qCvvALO. 47. “Kremlin Submits Bill to Turn Rosatom into All-encompassing State Nuclear Corporation,” Bellona.org, October 4, 2007, http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/nuclear-russia/2007-10-kremlin-submits-bill-to-turn-rosatom-into-all-encompassing-statenuclear-corporation. 48. US House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Ros-Lehtinen, Bachus, King, McKeon Send Letter to Geithner Opposing Russian Takeover of U.S. Uranium Processing Facility,” October 6, 2010, http://archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/story/?1618. 49. Fugleberg, Jeremy, “Russia Can’t Export Wyoming Uranium, Nuclear Regulators Tell Barrasso,” Casper Star-Tribune Online, March 29, 2011, http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/russia-can-t-export-wyoming-uranium-nuclear-regulators-tellbarrasso/article_5018f8f8-c59a-5e1b-9401-c019cd6a8625.html. 

50. Harvey, Cole J., “The U.S.-Russian Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation,” NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative, June 22, 2010, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/us-russian-peaceful-cooperation/. 

51. Congressman Ed Markey’s Office, “Markey & Fortenberry Introduce Resolution of Disapproval of Proposed Nuclear Deal,” news release, Ed Markey Congress Website, May 25, 2010, http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/may-25-2010-markey-andfortenberry-introduce-resolution-of-disapproval-of-proposed-nuclear-deal. 

52. Bleizeffer, Dustin, “Company: Uranium Won’t Go to Russia, Iran,” Billings (Montana) Gazette, September 28, 2010, http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/company-uranium-won-t-go-to-russia-iran/article_3c0424ba-cab2-11dfba2c-001cc4c002e0.html. 

53. “Response to Request for Additional Information,” Donna Wichers to Keith McConnell, October 18, 2010, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1029/ML102940435.pdf. 

54. Fugleberg, Jeremy, “Wyoming Mining Officials Tout Technology, Safety, Exports,” Star-Tribune (Caspar, Wyoming), January 7, 2011, http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-mining-officials-tout-technology-safety-exports/article_c55415dd-3aae-5e66- b485-83e9e61a5a11.html. 

55. US International Trade Commission, “Uranium from Russia,” Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Third Review), February 2012, http://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub4307.pdf. 

56. Helmer, John, “Putin Urges US Help for Oligarchs,” Asia Times Online, March 25, 2010, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LC25Ag01.html. 

57. “Salida Capital Foundation—Quick View,” Canadian Revenue Agency, http://www.craarc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22quickview-eng.action?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra- arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresulteng.action%3Fk%3DSalida%2BCapital%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue&fpe=2012-12- 31&b=835572066RR0001&n=Salida%20Capital%20Foundation. 

58. “Qualified Donees—Salida Capital Foundation,” Canadian Revenue Agency, http://www.craarc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22gifts-eng.action?b=835572066RR0001&fpe=2011-12- 31&n=Salida+Capital+Foundation&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.craarc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Ft3010form22QuickVieweng.action%3Fb%3D835572066RR0001%26amp%3Bfpe%3D2011-12-31%26amp%3Br%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.craarc.gc.ca%253A80%252Febci%252Fhaip%252Fsrch%252Fbasicsearchresulteng.action%253Fk%253DSalida%252BCapital%2526amp%253Bs%253Dregistered%2526amp%253Bp%253D1%2526amp%253Bb%253Dtrue. 

59. Salida’s chief business partner in Ukraine is Robert Bensh, who served as an adviser to Boyko, who served as energy minister and later deputy prime minister under President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych fled the country for Moscow during the Ukrainian uprising in 2014, and was granted Russian citizenship by Vladimir Putin. Salida and Bensh are involved in at least two energy ventures in the Ukraine including CUB Energy and EastCoal. For quotes on Boyko see: https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php? id=06KYIV4313&q=boyko%20 kremlin. 

60. Rosatom, “Public Annual Report,” news release, Globalreporting.org, http://static.globalreporting.org/reportpdfs/2013/358637c2a26b8a36867a5bf7be2d1793.pdf. 

61. The Salida Capital mentioned in the Rosatom report is owned under a Ukrainian subsidiary Energomashspetsstal, a heavy machine company that produces industrial metal castings for the nuclear industry. The Salida Capital Foundation’s approximately $2.9 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, starting in 2010 and lasting through 2013, is directly linked to the the Canadian hedge fund Salida Capital Corp., which does business out of the second floor of the CIBC building in downtown Toronto. Its principals at the time were executives with a history in Canadian mining finance. Salida’s founder, Danny Guy, was listed in 2009 as an official partner, along with Sergey Kurzin, of the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. In 2011 Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear agency that had acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, began including a “Salida Capital Corp.” in its list of subsidiaries. Other Rosatom documents traced the company in question to Panama City, Panama. 

On October 3, 2006, Blumont Capital Corporation, which was registered in Canada, announced a new investment initiative with several other Canadian-based hedge funds. One of those funds was Salida Capital Corporation of Ontario. Blumont’s principal, Veronika Hirsch, and Salida’s principal, Danny Guy, were both long-standing figures in the world of Canadian mining finance. Both of them were involved in bringing investors to Diamond Fields, the Canadian-based company that explored for diamonds in Arkansas during Bill Clinton’s governorship. This is the same Diamond Fields in which Frank Giustra’s Yorkton Securities invested. 

On October 4, 2006, papers were filed with the Panamanian Division of Corporations for a Salida Capital Corp. On November 2, 2006, this entity was officially registered as a corporation in Panama. The very same day, a company called Blumont Capital was registered in Panama by the same law firm, with the exact same board of directors. In fact, two other firms, both corresponding to Canadian investment entities with long-standing ties to Canadian mining finance were also registered the same day, by the same law firm, with the same board of directors. One of the Panamanian companies was First Leeward Investments. It just so happens that a Leeward Investments Company, headed by the colorful Matthew Brendan Kyne, is registered on the same floor as Salida Capital in Toronto’s CIBC building. The other Panamanian firm, New Thornhill Investments, corresponds to the Canadian-based Thornhill Investment Funds, run by the perhaps even more colorful Karleris Sarkans. Sarkans, whose book on international negotiations details his experiences “being held down at knifepoint and gunpoint by Russians,” was sued in Massachusetts in 2004 for investment fraud. Specifically, he was accused of investing in the Russian bond markets in 1997, when he had specifically promised an investor that he had liquidated his position in the Russian market. The investor lost well over a million dollars. The action resulted in a default judgment against him. 

Curiously, Salida Capital Panama has its own Ukrainian connection. Throughout 2008 Salida Capital Panama was used by the Eastern Ukrainian company Energomashspetsstal (EMSS) to import heavy machinery from China and the Czech Republic. EMSS makes castings and other large steel structures for mining and nuclear power plants. That same year a notorious Ukrainian oligarch and politician named Andriy Klyuev appropriated Ukrainian state funds to EMSS for “capital improvements.” EMSS was at that time 80 percent owned by the Industrial Union of Donbass (IUD). Ukrainian media reports as well as academic papers associate IUD with one of eastern Ukraine’s most powerful men, Serhiy Taruta. Taruta’s business dealings were on the ropes in January 2010. According to reports, Vladimir Putin arranged considerable financial support for them. It is against this background that Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear agency, as it successfully sought CFIUS approval to purchase a controlling stake in Uranium One, acquired EMSS on or about December 9, 2010. Throughout 2010 Salida Capital Canada’s newly created charity, the Salida Capital Foundation, received four separate infusions of money totaling $3.376 million (Canadian). That year, Salida’s CEO, Courtenay Wolfe, would join Bill Clinton onstage at the Clinton Global Initiative annual dinner to announce a charitable partnership, and its foundation would give to the Clinton Foundation almost $800,000 of what would become approximately $2.9 million by 2013. According to Canadian government records, that money is over 80 percent of all donations ever given by Salida’s own foundation. 

By June 2011 Rosatom’s corporate documents listed a “Salida Capital Group, Inc.; Panama City, Panama,” whose board contact information matched that of the Salida Capital Corp. registered in Panama in November 2006. When Rosatom published its annual report in 2012, it listed a Salida Capital Corp that it held “outside of the consolidated budget perimeter” through “PJSC Energomashspetsstal” or EMSS. 

It’s essential to understand that Salida Capital Corp. of Canada began publicly to do business in eastern Ukraine in the spring of 2010. It invested first in a natural gas play that would become a Canadian registered firm called Cub Energy and then in a coal operation in the Donbass region that became known as EastCoal. Both firms are well within the same financial, and therefore in Ukraine, political orbit. In this context, the creation of the Salida Capital Foundation at the end of 2009 and its generous donations to the Clinton Foundation demand the utmost scrutiny. 

One final question must be asked: why Panama? Panama is perhaps less known than the Cayman Islands as a vehicle for questionable financial dealings, but its virtues are well known by offshoring practitioners. Canadian law in particular allows for the creation of private investment foundations, which can hold international business company stock, but which function essentially as nonprofit corporations. Services exist in Canada to facilitate creating corporations in Panama that mirror and work with Canadian private investment foundations. The goal of such arrangements, naturally, is to shield assets from taxation and provide anonymity for the beneficiaries. The same law firm created not only Salida Capital Corp. of Panama, but simultaneously Blumont Capital Panama, whose Canadian counterpart was just beginning a new investment venture with Salida Canada. It also created the other two firms with equally curious Canadian parallels. The firm, as it so happens, specializes in creating just such private investment foundations. 

Was a Private Investment Foundation created for Salida Canada and its management and investors, who at some point came to include the Russian government who had business before the very secretary of state to whose charitable foundation Salida’s own charity was even then making donations? Since my inquiries to both Salida and Lombardi-Aguilar went unanswered, I cannot say for sure. I can only say the facts speak eloquently for themselves and demand an answer from the only parties who can give an answer. 

In 2015 Salida Capital Canada changed its name to Harrington Global. 

62. Strickland, Ken, and Andrea Mitchell, “Clinton, Obama ‘Memo of Understanding,’” NBC News, December 18, 2008, http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/12/18/4426618-clinton-obama-memo-of-understanding. 

63. “Clinton Surpasses $75 Million in Speech Income after Lucrative 2010,” CNN Political Ticker RSS, July 11, 2011, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/11/clinton-surpasses-75-million-in-speech-income-after-lucrative-2010/. 

64. “William Jefferson Clinton Speeches, 2001–2012,” Turner.com, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/23/clinton.speeches.2001-2012.pdf. 

65. “Former Russian Spy Recalls the Golden Age of Espionage,” The Telegraph (London), January 2, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/features/8236120/Former-Russian-spy-recalls-the-golden-age-of-espionage.html and http://en.gazeta.ru/news/2012/03/30/a_4116129.shtml; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/features/8236120/Former-Russianspy-recalls-the-golden-age-of-espionage.html. 

66. Low, Valentine, “My Old Friend the KGB Spy,” Evening Standard (London), December 30, 2002. 

67. Weiss, Michael, “Moscow’s Long, Corrupt Money Trail,” Daily Beast, March 22, 2014, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/22/moscow-s-long-corrupt-money-trail.html. 

68. Renaissance Capital, “Uranium One: Company on Schedule; Market Lags,” May 27, 2010, centralasia.rencap.com/download.asp? id=10956. 

69. “Burn after Reading: Russian Spies in America,” The Economist, June 29, 2010, http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/06/russian_spies_america; Smith, Ben, “Clinton Friend Was Spy’s Target,” Politico, June 29, 2010, http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/Clinton_friend_may_have_been_spys_target.html. 

70. “Spies Assigned to Gather Intel on U.S. Nuke Strategy for Russia, FBI Says,” NTI, June 29, 2010, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/spies-assigned-to-gather-intel-on-us-nuke-strategy-for-russia-fbi-says/. 

71. Levy, Clifford J., and Ellen Barry, “Putin Criticizes U.S. for Arrests of Espionage Suspects,” New York Times , June 29, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/world/europe/30lavrov.html. 

72. Soltis, Andy, “Soviet-style ‘Red’ Whine,” New York Post, June 30, 2010, http://nypost.com/2010/06/30/soviet-style-red-whine/. 

73. Baker, Peter, “The Mellowing of William Jefferson Clinton,” New York Times , May 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/magazine/31clinton-t.html?pagewanted=all. 

74. “Bill Clinton Offers Rare US Praise for Putin,” RIA Novosti, September 25, 2009, http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130925/183725042.html. 

75. Anderson, Derek, “Uranium Agreement Faces New Objections from U.S.,” St. Petersburg (Russia) Times, October 12, 2010, http://sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=32688. 

76. “Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate: Briefing by Representatives from the Departments and Agencies Represented on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to Discuss the National Security Implications of the Acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World, and Governmentown ed and -controlled Firm of the United Arab Emirates,” February 23, 2006, 6, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG109shrg32744/html/CHRG-109shrg32744.htm. 

77. “Press Release: Hillary Clinton Promotes Plan for Strong Defense and Good Jobs in Indiana,” American Presidency Project, April 12, 2008, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=96587. 

78. “Facing CFIUS: Better Safe Than Sorry—Law360,” Law360, July 5, 2012, http://www.law360.com/articles/355660/facing-cfiusbetter-safe-than-sorry. McConnell, Will, “Feds Query Another Chinese Mining Deal near TOP GUN,” TheDeal, May 23, 2012, http://www.thedeal.com/content/regulatory/feds-query-another-chinese-mining-deal-near-topgun.php. “US Bars China Wind Farm Deal on Security Grounds,” Space Daily, September 28, 2012, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_bars_China_wind_farm_deal_on_security_grounds_999.html. Drye, Kelley, “CFIUS Rejects Chinese Acquisition in U.S.,” news release, April 5, 2011, http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/client_advisories/0654. 

79. “6.3 Interaction with Uranium One, Inc.,” JSC Atomredmetzoloto, 2011 Annual Report, 44. 

80. Uranium One, “Uranium One Enters into Definitive Agreement with ARMZ for Going Private Transaction for CDN$2.86 per Share in Cash,” news release, January 14, 2013, Bloomberg.com, http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2013-01-14/abXujiJ0LYIk.html. 

81. Gutterman, Steve, “U.S.-Russian Civilian Nuclear Deal Boosts ‘Reset,’” Reuters, January 12, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/11/us-russia-usa-nuclear-idUSTRE70A5LB20110111. 

82. Melbye, Scott (executive vice president—marketing, Uranium One), “Uranium One’s Experience in Kazakhstan,” Kazatomprom Representative Office Opening, Washington, DC, slideshow presentation, May 2013, http://www.kazatomprom.kz/sites/default/files/6_Scott%20Melbye-Uranium%20One’s%20Experience%20in%20Kazakhstan.pdf. 

83. Baker, Matt, “Moscow’s American Uranium,” Politico, October 18, 2013, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/moscowsamerican-uranium-98472.html. “Regarding the Willow Creek, Moore Ranch, Jab & Antelope, Ludeman Projects and Well Logging Equipment,” Donna Wichers to Andrew Persinko and Roberto J. Torres, January 29, 2013, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1304/ML13043A505.pdf. 

84. “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World,” Pravda, January 22, 2013, http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/22-01- 2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0/. 

85. “Rosatom Spares No Expense to Buy Out Canada’s Uranium One,” RT, January 14, 2013, http://rt.com/business/rosatom-100- percent-canadian-uranium-966. 

86. Baker, “Moscow’s American Uranium.” 

87. Helms, Kathy, “Navajo Protests Canadian-Russian Uranium Mine at Big Boquillas,” Gallup Independent (New Mexico), May 21, 2013. 

88. Horoshko, Sonja, “The Navajo Nation Nixes Access for Uranium Mining,” Four Corners Free Press (Colorado), June 1, 2013, http://fourcornersfreepress.com/?p=1527. 

CHAPTER 4: INDIAN NUKES 

1. Baruah, Amit, “India a Partner in Obama’s N-efforts?” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), April 6, 2009, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-a-partner-in-obama-s-n-efforts/article1-397262.aspx. 

2. Nayar, K. P., “Time to Tell a Prophetic Secret,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 24, 2004, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041224/asp/nation/story_4169260.asp. 

3. Sen, Chanakya, “A Review of Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb by Strobe Talbott,” Kashmir Herald, December 2004/January 2005, http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/17051999/books.html. 

4. Krepon, Michael, “Looking Back: The 1998 Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Tests,” Arms Control Today , Arms Control Association, May 2008, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_05/lookingback. Diamond, John, The CIA and the Culture of Failure: U.S. Intelligence from the End of the Cold War to the Invasion of Iraq (Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Series, 2008), 268. Richey, Bill, “Early Report 5/15: Indian Nuclear Test: All Eyes on Pakistan’s Response,” Foreign Media Reaction Daily Digest (US Information Agency), May 15, 1998, http://fas.org/news/pakistan/1998/05/980515-usia-fmrr.htm. 

5. Sen, Canakya, “Two Villages and an Elephant,” Asia Times (Hong Kong), December 16, 2004, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2000/06/summer-india-cohen. 

6. Clinton, Hillary, “Remarks of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Special Event at the UN Social Summit,” UN Social Summit, Denmark, Copenhagen, March 6–12, 1995, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/gov/950307142511.htm. 

7. Clinton, Hillary, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63005/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century. 

8. Federation of American Scientists, “Nomination of Hillary R. Clinton to Be Secretary of State,” January 13, 2009, http://fas.org/irp/congress/2009_hr/hillary.html. 

9. “Clinton’s India Connection,” Times of India (Mumbai), August 24, 2003, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/ClintonsIndia-connection/articleshow/144077.cms. 

10. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier,” Sify Finance, n.d., http://www.sify.com/finance/sant-singhchatwal-rise-and-rise-of-an-american-punjabi-hotelier-imagegallery-4-others-mbsqduaghdfsi.html. 

11. Port, Bob, and Edward Lewine, “Donor Gives Hillary a Soft $210G,” New York Daily News, November 3, 2000, http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/donor-hillary-soft-210g-article-1.884254. 

12. Haniffa, Aziz, “Amar Singh Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Rediff India Abroad, December 19, 2008, http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/19amar-singh-gave-millions-to-clinton-foundation.htm. 

13. Venugopal, Arun, “South Asians Lean to Clinton . . . or Obama,” WNYC News, February 4, 2008, http://www.wnyc.org/story/78329-south-asians-lean-to-clinton-or-obama/. 

14. Gurley, George, “Vikram Chatwal, Turban Cowboy,” New York Observer, November 18, 2002, http://observer.com/2002/11/vikram-chatwal-turban-cowboy/#ixzz38gg8TRbI. 

15. Nelson, Dean, “Hillary Clinton’s Playboy Fundraiser Arrested over Heroin and Cocaine,” The Telegraph (UK), April 5, 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9975344/Hillary-Clintons-playboy-fundraiser-arrested-over-heroin-andcocaine.html. 

16. Sherman, William, “Tax Deadbeat Is Livin’ Large: Clinton’s Buddy Owes City $2.4M,” New York Daily News, November 24, 2002, http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/tax-deadbeat-livin-large-clinton-buddy-owes-city-2-4m-article-1.496489?pgno=2. 

17. Ibid. 

18. Solomon, John, and Matthew Mosk, “When Controversy Follows Cash,” Washington Post, September 3, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090201436_2.html. 

19. Port and Lewine, “Donor Gives Hillary a Soft $210G.” 

20. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier.” 

21. US Department of State, Embassy in New Dehli, “Political Bargaining Continues Prior to Key Vote in Parliament,” WikiLeaks, July 17, 2008, https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08NEWDELHI1972_a.html. “Sant Chatwal Says WikiLeaks Allegations Baseless,” Deccan Herald (India), March 18, 2011, http://www.deccanherald.com/content/146770/F. 

22. Chakraborty, Tapas, “Clinton First, Sick Kids Later—Mulayam Woos Dollars as Rahul Visits Death Zone,” The Telegraph— Calcutta, September 8, 2005, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050908/asp/nation/story_5212257.asp. 

23. Haniffa, “Amar Singh Contributed Millions to Clinton Foundation.” 

24. “Can Obama Make India an Ally?” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), October 30, 2010. 

25. “Indian ‘Cash for Votes’ MP Amar Singh Freed on Bail,” BBC News, September 15, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldsouth-asia-14925984. 

26. Chakraborty, “Clinton First, Sick Kids Later.” 

27. Aron, Sunita, “Clinton, Romance and All That . . . ,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 7, 2005. 

28. Ibid. 

29. “Rural Health Mission Launch Today,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 6, 2005. 

30. “Clinton Visit: Celebs Show Has Just Begun, Says Amar,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), September 10, 2005. 

31. Dutt, Ela, “The World Cannot Do without Muslims, and Muslims Cannot Do without America: Singh,” News India-Times (New York), October 21, 2005. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Ibid. 

34. “Amar Singh Makes Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation,” Times of India (Mumbai), December 18, 2008, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amar-Singh-makes-huge-donation-to-Clinton-Foundation/articleshow/3864349.cms. 

35. Bagchi, Indrani, “. . . But May Slow Down N-deal, Doha Round,” Times of India (Mumbai), November 9, 2006, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/-But-may-slow-down-N-deal-Doha-round/articleshow/374508.cms. 

36. Haniffa, Aziz, “Indian-American Community Upset with Hillary,” Rediff, June 30, 2006, http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/30aziz.htm. 

37. Mcintire, Mike, “Indian-Americans Test Their Clout on Atom Pact,” New York Times , June 4, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/washington/05indians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 

38. Gerstein, Josh, “Clinton Taps Newly Active Indian Donors,” New York Sun , June 12, 2007, http://www.nysun.com/national/clintontaps-newly-active-indian-donors/56332/. 

39. Srivastava, Siddharth, “India: Wheeling and (Nuclear) Dealing,” Asia Times Online, July 6, 2006, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HG06Df01.html. 40. “India Inc. Gives Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Business Standard News (India) December 20, 2008, http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economy-policy/india-inc-gives-millions-to-clinton-foundation-108122001012_1.html. 

41. Prashad, Vijay, “What Did Hillary Clinton Do?” Counterpunch (blog), March 10, 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/10/what-did-hillary-clinton-do/. 

42. Talbott, Strobe, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006), 231. 

43. “Foreign Policy Brain Trusts: Clinton Advisers,” Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, June 20, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/elections/foreign-policy-brain-trusts-clinton-advisers/p16204. 

44. Weiss, Leonard, “India and the NPT,” Strategic Analysis 34, no. 2 (March 2010): 255–71, doi:10.1080/09700160903537856. 

45. Markey, Edward J., and Ellen O. Tauscher, “Don’t Loosen Nuclear Rules for India,” New York Times , August 19, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20markey.html. 

46. Parnes, Aime, “Clinton Allies Distance ‘Decisive’ Hillary from ‘Passive’ Obama,” The Hill, September 10, 2014, http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fnews%2F217216-clinton-allies-distance-decisive-hillary-from-passive-obama. 

47. Meyer, Bill, “Bill Clinton Made Millions from Foreign Sources,” Cleveland.com, January 27, 2009, http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/01/bill_clinton_made_millions_fro.html. 48. “Not a Pygmy, but a Giant,” Indiatoday, March 17, 2003, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-today-conclave-bill-clinton-laysdown-his-vision-for-india-with-analysis-of-key-concerns/1/206930.html. 

49. Zajac, Andrew, “Clinton Donors Wooed, Baggage and All,” The Swamp (Chicago Tribune), June 30, 2008, http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/obama_woos_clinton_donors_bagg.html. 

50. Zajac, Andrew, “Talks Not Cheap for Clinton,” Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2008, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-04- 08/news/0804070831_1_sen-hillary-clinton-fee-disaster-relief. 

51. Haniffa, Aziz, “From the Bottom of My Heart, I Salute You,” India Abroad, October 10, 2008. 

52. Malhotra, Jyoti, “Whoops of Delight Greet Nuclear Deal,” BBC News, November 17, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6158076.stm. 

53. “Democrats Will Not Hinder N-deal Passage: Hillary Clinton,” Indo-Asian News Service, September 14, 2008, http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/democrats-will-not-hinder-n-deal-passage/article1-337687.aspx. As the article points out: “Democrats’ support is crucial as they control both the House of Representatives and the Senate.” 

54. Prashad, Vijay, “What Did Hillary Clinton Do?” CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names (blog), March 10, 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/03/10/what-did-hillary-clinton-do/. Haniffa, Aziz, “‘I Have Staked a Lot on the Nuclear Deal,’” Rediff, September 23, 2008, http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/23inter.htm. 

55. Haniffa, Aziz, “US Senate to Vote on N-deal on Wednesday,” Rediff, October 1, 2008, http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/01ndeal2.htm. 

56. Haniffa, Aziz, “‘It’s the Greatest Moment in India-US History,’” Rediff, October 2, 2008, http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/02ndeal3.htm. 

57. “Amar Singh Makes Huge Donation to Clinton Foundation.” 

58. “Clinton ‘Donation’ Complaint,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 24, 2008, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081224/jsp/nation/story_10294845.jsp. 

59. Ibid. 

60. “Bill a Friend but No Dollars to Donate,” The Telegraph (Calcutta), December 19, 2008, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1081220/jsp/nation/story_10277419.jsp. 

61. “Indians Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), December 20, 2008. 

62. “Sant Singh Chatwal: Rise and Rise of an American Punjabi Hotelier.” 

63. Jacob, Sarah, “I Am Proud of What I Have Done: Chatwal to NDTV,” NDTV, February 13, 2010, http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/i-am-proud-of-what-i-have-done-chatwal-to-ndtv-16248. 

64. “I Have No Interest in Indian Politics: Chatwal,” Siasat Daily (Hyderabad, India), March 30, 2011, http://www.siasat.com/english/news/i-have-no-interest-indian-politics-chatwal?page=0%2C1. 

65. Jacob, “I Am Proud of What I Have Done.” 

66. “Amar, Jaya Expelled from SP,” Times of India (Mumbai), February 2, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Amar-Jayaexpelled-from-SP/articleshow/5527183.cms. 

67. Nelson, “Hillary Clinton’s Playboy Fundraiser Arrested over Heroin and Cocaine.” 

68. Clifford, Stephanie, and Russ Buettner, “Clinton Backer Pleads Guilty in a Straw Donor Scheme,” New York Times, April 17, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/nyregion/clinton-backer-pleads-guilty-in-a-straw-donor-scheme.html?_r=0. 

69. US Department of Justice, “Hotel Magnate Pleads Guilty to Federal Election Campaign Spending Limits Evasion Scheme and Witness Tampering,” press release, April 17, 2014, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/April/14-crm-400.html. 

70. US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, “Hotel Magnate Sant Singh Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Scheme to Evade Federal Election Campaign Contribution Limits, and to Witness Tampering,” news release, April 17, 2014, http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/April14/2014Apr17.php. 

71. Colvin, Jill, “Hotel Magnate Pleads Guilty to Campaign Finance Fraud,” New York Observer, April 17, 2014, http://observer.com/2014/04/hotel-magnate-pleads-guilty-to-campaign-finance-fraud/. 

72. “Building the Chatwal Brand,” Leaders Magazine 33, No. 3 (2010), http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/2010.3_Jul/PDFs/Chatwal.pdf.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.