I want a journalist to ask Hillary Clinton if she is ever going to answer these 5 questions.
Previously asked by the New Yorker:
(Note: This is about the Clinton Foundation and ONE of the "speaking" fees paid to Bill while Hillary was SOS, not about the millions in speaking fees she was paid after she resigned as SOS) and before she officially announced she was running for President.)
1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One).
Update: Obviously they are going to say no but it begs the question, in light of all the other transactions that have transpired, how can anyone NOT draw the conclusion that there was quid pro quo. Mere happenstance? Really?
2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed.
3. Did the Clintons personally profit? ...... Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”
4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.
5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company
While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”
“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
absolutely right about that. The only questions I have are:
1. When do we start holding our breath waiting for that to happen?
2. How long should we hold our breath while waiting?
And turn all the answers to show why she's innocent/you're wrong/she's learned her lesson... etc.
Kind of like she made her support of MORE H-1B visa sound good for America and the American people (2007 debate).
Until she becomes the nominee, or drops out, you know you're going to have to listen to anti-Hillary stuff. And, come to think of it, even after she becomes the nominee.
Especially here, as you well know. We're not meh about anybody! Hang in there! I don't care for her, but I totally support your support, if that makes sense. 
Like this guy and his "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War
Jebus, every day she reminds me more of Richard Nixon.
