Holmes gave answers at odds with CNBC’s own reporting about the timing of his investments in the highly controversial Uranium One company
Approval of Hillary Clinton’s State Department was necessary for Uranium One deal with Russia to go through
Nine (9) Uranium One investors, including Frank Holmes, gave Hillary’s foundation a combined $145 million
In a CNBC Squawk Box segment titled “The Clinton Cash Scandal: Frank Holmes,” Frank Holmes, U.S. Global Investors CEO, discussed the controversy surrounding his donation to the Clinton Foundation. During the interview on CNBC, U.S. Global Investors CEO Frank Holmes was asked when he invested and sold Uranium One. The exchange produced an embarrassing moment for Holmes, as his on-air statements directly contradicted the CNBC fact graphics displayed on the screen. (See “Clinton cash scandal: Frank Holmes” [video link, 5/12/15, NBC News/ CNBC [http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/cnbc/clinton-cash-scandal-frank-holmes-443836995958]; see also “URANIUM INVESTOR-TURNED-CLINTON FOUNDATION MEGA DONOR FRANK HOLMES GRILLED BY CNBC” by Breitbart News Staff, 5/12/15 [http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/12/uranium-investor-turned-clinton-foundation-mega-donor-frank-holmes-grilled-by-cnbc/]).
NBC NEWS HAD PROOF THAT HOLMES' COMPANY STILL OWNED URANIUM ONE STOCK WHEN IT WAS SOLD TO THE RUSSIANS
In a graphics box titled “From the New York Times,” the CNBC screen graphic stated: “Frank Holmes donated between $250-$500k to the Clinton Foundation — U.S. Global Investors held $4.7 million in Uranium Ones shares in Q1 of 2011”; and that the U.S. Global Investors’ own 2011 SEC filing further confirmed Holmes’ company held Uranium One stock.CLINTON DONOR, FRANK HOLMES, DENIED HOLDINGS IN URANIUM ONE AT THE TIME OF THE RUSSIA DEAL
When he was peppered for details by CNBC host Joe Kernan, Holmes repeatedly denied that he had any holdings in Uranium One when it was sold to the Russians; and he twice said that he and his investment company had been “Long Gone” when the stock was sold to the Russians.CNBC’s chief international correspondent Michelle Caruso-Cabrera then put in her own follow-up to Kernan’s line of questioning, when she asked Frank Holmes this: ““But the suggestion is that you donated money to a foundation that was connected with the possibility of approval of a deal that you may have benefitted from. Is that correct?”
AFTER HE HAD BEEN CONFRONTED BY THE CNBC PANEL, HERE’S WHAT HOLMES SAID
First, Frank Holmes made sure to reiterate the Hillary Clinton Campaign talking points about the whole Clinton Foundation scandal and the uranium deal in particular — “No, that’s a lot of disinformation. That’s just a political battle this year....”When one of the CNBC hosts, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, persisted — “But, still, the question is, were you in a position to benefit from approval of this deal at the same time that you were writing checks to the Clinton Foundation?” Holmes again replied with a non-responsive answer, “No, there’s no, I had no idea any of those two events. There are two separate events....”
Then CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin jumped in with this: “When people finish watching this interview, they’re going to say, it wasn’t unequivocal on your part and that there wasn’t a lot of clarity....” Holmes’ reply to that remark still did not contain any denial — “I don’t understand. I have no idea what—you’re making—lots of conjecture....”
Andrew Ross Sorkin then put it to Frank Holmes one last time — “We’ll give you one last shot at it,” said Sorkin. “In a sentence or two, unequivocally, anything you want to say? Because right now it’s all a big haze for us.” Yet again, Frank Holmes was evasive, saying this: “There’s no haze. I have a global investment company and I invest in many companies in many different countries and I give to a lot of charitable organizations....”
That wasn’t the last word though; that privilege went to Mr. Sorkin, who said, “Unfortunately, I don’t think it speaks to the answer. We’ll leave it there,”
5 comments:
UPDATE: THE “SHE JUST DOESN’T LOOK LIKE A PRESIDENT” EDITION
THE PHOTO OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AT HER “OFFICIAL” WEB PAGE JUST DOESN’T LOOK PRESIDENTIAL — THAT’S NOT GOOD FOR HER OR HER CAMPAIGN
Take a look at the “Official Campaign Website – HillaryClinton.com”....
Next to the [H>] logo and the “Join the official campaign” box, the accompanying photograph of Ms. Clinton simply does not communicate the notion of “President of the Unted States” (See [https://www.hillaryclinton.com/join/72485/?utm_medium=om2016&utm_source=gs&utm_campaign=lb-launch&utm_content=68871576018&utm_term=c]).
SEE WHAT YOU THINK....
what a bunch of croocks all these Clintons are, Hillary-Bill-and-even- Chelsea.
Chelsea even married into a family of crooks, it shows how she was raised by her mother.
UPDATE: THE “WHAT ARE RELIABLE OLD DOUCHE BAGS GOOD FOR ANYWAY” EDITION
ONE OF HILLARY CLINTON’S RELIABLE OLD DOUCHE BAGS — GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS — FORCED TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE “HONEST MISTAKE” OF NOT REPORTING HIS CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATION OF $50,000 ... ER... MAKE THAT $75,000 — YEAH, THERE’S A LOT OF THAT NON-DISCLOSURE STUFF GOING AROUND LATELY....
ABC STANDS BEHIND GEORGE S — NO PUNISHMENT OR INDEPENDENT ETHICS PROBE SEEMS TO BE IN STORE FOR THIS “HONEST MISTAKE” — BUT THIS INCIDENT HAS IMMEDIATELY COST STEPHANOPOULOS HIS CHANCE TO MODERATE A GOP PRE-CONVENTION DEBATE
LATE REPORTS HAVE AMENDED THE DONATION AMOUNT UP TO $75,000 FROM $50,000
Here’s one of the take-aways according to Bloomberg — “ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on Thursday apologized in a statement to Politico's On Media blog for his previously undisclosed donations totaling $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation.... The large donation by Stephanopoulos, who was the communications director for Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign and then was the White House communications director, was revealed a month after he interviewed the author of the book Clinton Cash, which investigated donations made to the Clinton Foundation while Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was working as secretary of state, on ABC's ‘This Week.’..." (See “George Stephanopoulos' Clinton Foundation Donations Cost Him Role in Republican Presidential Debate” by Ali Elkin, 5/14/15, Bloomberg News [http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/george-stephanopoulos-apologizes-for-clinton-foundation-donations]).
Bloomberg News also reported that ABC News made its own pathetic in the tank for everybody involved statement about the whole mess, quoting ABC thus: “As George has said, he made charitable donations to the [Bill, Hillary and Chelsea] Foundation to support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public record.... He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He’s admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him." [I guess there’s not going to be any punishment or even any independent ethics probe, as far as ABC is concerned ....]
On Thursday, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos said he would not moderate his network's Republican primary debate next year after revealing that he had made $50,000 in previously undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation.... Also, on Fox News’ “The Five” it was reported that Stephenopoulos had to amend his previous apology for making $50,000 in donations, because it was disclosed that he actually made at least three annual donations of $25,000 to the Clinton Family Foundation.
UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE “BROOKLYN GUY SAYS ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ ” EDITION
YESTERDAY, COLIN CAMPBELL POINTED OUT THE “POTENTIAL... CONFLICT OF INTEREST” BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS — ALSO HIGHLIGHTED AN INSTANCE OF SUCH A CONFLICT — AND THE SHOCK AND OFFENSE TAKEN BY SOME FELLOW JOURNALISTS
TODAY, CC IS TWEETING THAT SEAN HANNITY MIGHT NOT BE THE “...RIGHT ATTACK DOG...” TO GO AFTER GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
On Thursday, our local political guru on the national scene, Colin Campbell, wrote this: “ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos apologized on Thursday for not disclosing a potential conflict of interest while covering the presidential race. *** In recent years, Stephanopoulos gave $50,000 [since amended to $75,000] to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to Politico. He did not disclose that fact while grilling the author of a book accusing the foundation of corruption...” (See “George Stephanopoulos busted for not disclosing donations to the Clinton Foundation” by Colin Campbell, 5/14/15, The Business Insider [http://www.businessinsider.com/george-stephanopoulos-apologizes-for-clinton-foundation-donations-2015-5]). Colin was quite succinct and he accurately presented the relevant issues involving Mr. Stephanopoulos. He particularly noted the following: “Though Stephanopoulos played down his contributions to the Clinton Foundation as merely supporting a charitable cause he cares about, other journalists expressed shock at the revelation.... [followed by tweets from fellow journalists].
Early on Friday [about 9:00 AM], Colin Campbell Tweeted his followers: “Is Hannity the ideal attack dog to go after Stephanopoulos for partisan 2016 coverage? [with this link: http://video.foxnews.com/playlist/on-air-hannity/ …].
UPDATE: THE “CLINTONS JUST RAKE IN LOTS OF MONEY FOR THEMSELVES” EDITION
NY TIMES REPORTS BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON MADE OVER $30 MILLION SINCE JANUARY 1, 2014 — MOSTLY FROM SPEAKING FEES
IN AN ERA OF INCOME INEQUALITY, HUGE SPEAKING FEES, HIGH TOTAL INCOME AND ACCUMULATED WEALTH OF THE CLINTONS COULD CREATE CHALLENGES FOR HILLARY CLINTON AS SHE TRIES TO CAST HERSELF AS “A CHAMPION OF EVERYDAY AMERICANS”
According to a report by Maggie Haberman and Steve Eder that will appear in the Saturday Editions of the NY Times, “The sum [$30 million mentioned in the subheading above] makes Mrs. Clinton among the wealthiest of the 2016 presidential candidates, [which] could create challenges for the former secretary of state as she tries to cast herself as a champion of everyday Americans in an era of income inequality.... The Clintons’ riches have already become a subject of political attacks, and her campaign has been eager to showcase Mrs. Clinton as a more down-to-earth figure.... A major dimension of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is expected to be policy proposals to narrow the gap between the rich and poor and to address stagnant wages. Yet she is far from those problems; while she said she and President Clinton were “dead broke” when they left the White House in early 2001, they are now part of the American elite.... ” (See “Clintons Earned $30 Million in 16 Months, Report Shows”by Maggie Haberman & Steve Edermay, 5/15/15 [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/politics/clintons-reportedly-earned-30-million-in-the-last-16-months.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0]).
“... Of Mrs. Clinton’s speeches, 10 were delivered to audiences outside the United States, but they were not nearly as far-flung as those by her husband over the years. Nine were to Canadian groups: the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Whistler, British Columbia; trade organizations in Montreal and Vancouver; the think tank Canada 2020, which generates socially progressive policy; and five organized by the events firm tinePublic Inc. The 10th speech was to a health care company audience in Mexico City.... Mrs. Clinton also spoke to a mix of corporations (GE, Cisco, Deutsche Bank), medical and pharmaceutical groups (the California Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association), and women’s organizations like the Commercial Real Estate Women Network....”
EXORBITANT PAY FOR LIGHT WORK CAN DISTANCE SOMEONE LIKE HILLARY CLINTON FROM THE REALITIES MOST AMERICANS EXPERIENCE AT THEIR JOBS
The last thing mentioned in the Times piece by Haberman and Edermay is this: “The speaking circuit has enriched many well-known Washington figures and former presidents, but the exorbitant pay for light work can distance them from the realities most Americans experience at their jobs. In one case, the report shows, Mrs. Clinton received $100,000 for a speech to the California Medical Association — by satellite.”
Post a Comment