Cultural Learnings of an Ex-President (Kazakhstan Uranium in Two Minutes)

[alcibiades_mystery]

First disclaimer: I don't necessarily believe the NY Times article in all its insinuations. I'd like to see more evidence. Just as one example of some questionable evidence, we have this:

Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom’s choice of UrAsia was a “mystery,” said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter.

“UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,” Mr. Clark said. The company became a “major uranium producer when it didn’t even exist before.”

The implication, of course, is that there would be no way that UrAsia could have secured the mining contract legitimately, but this seems a stretch, given Giustra's obvious stature and business savvy long before Clinton met him. Moreover, we don't know whether this Gene Clark is a reliable source, or some kind of partisan, etc. Be suspicious. That said, these are the relationships and motivations imputed by the article, in a simple to access form, as far as I can tell:

Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States

What he wants: Donations for his foundation; money from engagements
What he has to offer: Blessing the human rights record of Kazakhstan's dictator

Frank Giustra, uber-rich mining company owner

What he wants: Contracts for his shell mining company UrAsia with the Kazakhstan state-run uranium agency
What he has to offer: Money in the form of donations, connections, etc.

Nursultan Nazarbayev, dictator of Kazakhstan

What he wants: International legitimacy for his anti-democratic regime, including a pass on human rights abuses
What he has to offer: Instant contracts to Kazakhstan's uranium mines

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Oh. one more thing

No laws seem to have been broken...:-)

[aquart]

3. You noticed that, too?

But Bill did get a ton of money to buy AIDS drugs. He's such a bad boy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. You're joking, right

You see no ethical problem here?

:shrug:

[billbuckhead]

7. Did he get the house he lives in at a bargain from a criminal?

How about that ethical problem vs money to a foundation to buy AIDS drugs?

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. No, he didn't

But back to the issue at hand. I never found it particularly convincing to say, when asked a question about one's ethics "Hey, look at THAT guy." So, back to the issue.

Are you suggesting that he weighed the effect of lending legitimacy to to a dictator with a terrible human rights record agains the good that would be done by the Clinton Foundation charity if he took part in the quid pro quo?

Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. :shrug:

[billbuckhead]

9. So Obama didn't get a house next to a crook at a big discount?

and then buy some more property at a bargain? The very house Obama lives in is built on a foundation of corrruption :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. No, Clinton didn't

But we're talking about Clinton here. I'd be happy to discuss Obama's property deal as well - which I think was disgusting and selfish - but here we're talking about Bill Clinton lending his international prestige to a brutal dictator in exchange for uranium contracts for an associate and donor.

I'm guessing you don't want to talk about that, since you're avoiding it even at the cost of misunderstanding basic English.

[beachmom]

26. That's baloney what you are implying about Obama:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

[aquart]

20. Ethics?

Goodness. Well, okay. Be ethical. What does that mean? You tut tut what someone else does or you get off your ass and do something about it? Kazahkstan has a brutal dictator? WELL, WE INVADED THE LAST COUNTRY THAT HAD ONE. Seen it lately? My ethics say it would have been better to leave that brutal dictator to die of old age. Because then so would a million Iraqis now dead because we were so fucking ETHICAL.

Spare me your sentimental useless "ethics". If we aren't going to depose a dictator, we have to deal with him. Or are you a mighty isolationist? Let's see. Lying to this dictator got a sweet deal on uranium and a fabulous donation for AIDS drugs. I would prefer to see uranium stay in the ground, but some nations use it.

No, my ethics aren't bothered. People are dying cruelly in every part of this planet. Do you plan to save every damn one of them? Do you think you SHOULD? Do you believe, as Bush believed, you would be THANKED? What arrogance. And, thinking of Iraq, what BLOODY arrogance.

Or were you only planning to spew hot air and sanctimonious words and do nothing?

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. A lot of hot air for a very simple principle

You don't praise the human rights record of a human rights abuser. You don't say that Nazarbayev is doing a helluva job on human rights. You just don't, because it makes things harder.

It's not as complicated as you're trying to pretend. You're acting like I require Clinton to personally save people's lives through some heroic action. It's much simpler than that: do not praise the human rights record of a human rights abuser as a quid pro quo for your buddy's mining deal. Don't sell your good name to despots.

Your histrionics on this point are very telling indeed.

[aquart]

30. And how many lives did you save with that speech?

Simple is for simple minds. International relations are NOT simple. Your philosophy is EXACTLY what sent Bush's supporters into Iraq. Not Bush, who did it to get oil for his friends. But all the loyal Bushies who believe exactly as you do, that it's simple. Disband Saddam's army because they did bad things. Simple. Hold an election. Simple. Vote democratically. Simple.

I used to believe your Obama was just that simple. Now that I know he's a skilled liar, I am less afraid of him. But I'm still terrified of all those who think what we face is SIMPLE.

As the weather gets worse, and we are faced with letting millions die because we have no way to save them, or feed them if we did, I can't wait to see how simple you find it.

[Stephanie]

17. No, but a $131M gift to the husband of the POTUS might garner some favors in future

No?

[Stephanie]

18. And $131.3M to the husband of a senator couldn't hurt, could it?

Why won't the Clintons disclose the list of library donors?

[aquart]

2. I've seen big NYT stories before that were only innuendo and lies.

There was one that ruined a Chinese scientist who was working here. I'm sure you all know others.

I have a question I didn't see dealt with in the story. WHAT WAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICY WITH WHICH BILL INTERFERED?????? Since there isn't a single policy that anyone can point to that benefits this nation rather than private and/or foreign interests, whom did Bill screw over by helping Giustra get that contract (and how crazy to go from making movies to mining uranium)?

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Whom did Bill screw over?

If the story is as they say - and I agree that it's far to early to tell - then the answer to that would be the people of Kazakhstan. What the article implies is that Bill Clinton falsely praised the human rights record of the Kazakhstani dictator, thereby lending international legitimacy to the regime. At the very least, I would hope that you see how such a thing is, well, pretty monstrous, if true. It's certainly unethical, and even shockingly so.

Let's put it in other terms.

I am one of the most respected childcare advocates in my city. My friend Jimmy wants a landscaping contract from a guy - let's call him Nusultan Nazarbayev - that owns a block. I visit Nazarbayev with Jimmy, and I know that Nazarbayev beats his children. He's having a PR problem because he beats his kids. So, I go out and talk about how Nazarbayev has cleaned up his act, Jimmy gets the contract, then Jimmy throws a couple of his new found bucks my way for a small gardfening charoty I'm running, and more for a speaking engagement.

You don't think that's dirty? You'd be asking "Whom did he really screw over?" Really?

[aquart]

19. Oh, so words would have made a difference.

Obama will, of course, call killer dictators killer dictators and refuse to do business with them? Would you care to bet a few dollars on that?

I'm not sure how young you are, so I don't really know how to deal with your feverish idealism. Or your soon-to-be-destroyed belief in how much you can alter with words.

I have only one question about this story. WHAT was the Bush administration policy with which Clinton and Giustra interfered? Oh, and whom was it supposed to benefit?

As to your pearl-clutching over the terrible killer torturer dictator. So was Saddam Hussein. Iraq under Hussein. Iraq under the United States. Do you want us to invade Kazahkstan next? Depose that awful killer torturer dictator? DO YOU??? Because otherwise he's not going anywhere and the more we deal with him the more influence we have. Now take your feigned useless outrage and go kick a cat for hunting mice.

Do you realize your prissy too pure for this planet attitude is exactly the same as Rumsfeld's? As Bush's and all the loyal Bushies? You don't like that dictatorship...WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO??? Under your morals, what are we obligated to DO? People are being killed there. WELL????

Hypocrite.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Nice try

I think there's a difference between these things:

1) Invading a country
2) Praising a human rights abuser for mining contracts
3) NOT praising a human rights abuser for mining contracts or any other economic concession.

But then, I'm not trying to defend the indefensible, so I can still make rational distinctions.

[agdlp]

6. Hillary Clinton runs on Government Transparency, openness and support government blogging

I think it’s good that we have journalists that go in-depth on the issues.

Both her campain and BC have the resources to defend any wrongdoing in MSM if needed.

[ursi]

14. Why does Hillary never seem to know what her husband is up to?

[Stephanie]

25. It seems that she DOES know >

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=clinton%20library&st=nyt&scp=5

In raising record sums for her campaign, Mrs. Clinton has tapped many of the foundation’s donors. At least two dozen have become “Hillraisers,” each bundling $100,000 or more for her presidential bid. The early library donors, combined with their families and political action committees, have contributed at least $784,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate and presidential coffers.

The foundation and Mrs. Clinton’s political campaigns have been intertwined in other ways. Terry McAuliffe, who led the foundation’s fund-raising and sits on its board, is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman and chief fund-raiser. Cheryl Mills plays a similar dual role, sitting on the foundation board and serving as the general counsel to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. And Jay Carson recently traded a communications position at the foundation for a job as her campaign’s press secretary.

***

But Mrs. Clinton’s effort to distance herself understates the extent to which the foundation was a joint enterprise from the start.

Shortly after the Clintons left the White House, close advisers convened meetings at the couple’s Washington home to map out Mr. Clinton’s future as a philanthropist.

Mrs. Clinton played an important role in shaping both the foundation’s organization and the scope of its work, said Karen A. Tramontano, a senior adviser in the Clinton White House and the foundation’s first chief of staff.

Advisers also were acutely aware that the foundation’s operations — and any perception of a conflict — could harm Mrs. Clinton politically. “She and I would speak frequently,” Ms. Tramontano said. “She had a lot of ideas. All the papers that went to him went to her.”

[Yossariant]

11. Uh... Don Van Atta?! At it again Whitewater. "Her Way"

What happens to an investigative reporter best known for his role "breaking" three "scandals," each of which fell apart upon government investigation?

If he's Jeff Gerth, and the Clintons are the subjects of one of those stories, he gets to share a million-dollar book deal to recycle his own flawed reporting and rehash ages-old anecdotes.

And what did Jeff Gerth produce in exchange for his newfound riches? In Her Way*, GERTH and his co-author, DON VAN ATTA, compiled a laundry list of previously reported anecdotes -- some true, some almost certainly false, some "preposterous" -- and repackaged them for sale for $29.99...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705260003

...Much of the criticism of Gerth's (and the Times') Whitewater reporting focused on a pattern of over-hyping innocuous facts. It is important to note that this criticism has come not only from those close to the Clintons, but from working journalists as well...

The first reporter to fall for the tale was The New York Times' Jeff Gerth, an investigative reporter. He produced an almost incomprehensible report on the Clintons' Whitewater land investments in early 1992. But incomprehensible or not, the fact that it appeared in so prestigious a paper as The New York Times insinuated that something must have been wrong. And that meant that every other baying hound in the pack had to give chase. ..

The tale of the resulting journalistic feeding frenzy is artfully told in a new book titled Fools for Scandal, by Gene Lyons...

Lyons begins by showing how Gerth was duped by Clinton's GOP enemies and how Gerth's original stories were so error-filled, intentionally or otherwise, that one of the key figures, former Arkansas state securities director Lee Thalheimer, called them "unmitigated horseshit."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705250001

Lots more at links --- caps mine.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Since I already noted that the article was dubious in the OP

I'll take your post as an endorsement.

[Yossariant]

13. Just exposing the slime to daylight. Too bright for you?

I noted your "disclaimer" and your #4.

:puke:

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. There's a disclaimer there too

:shrug:

As for "exposing the slime to daylight," that works both ways, doesn't it?

[Stephanie]

16. Really what Giustra had to offer was a de facto commission.

$131,000,000/$3,100,000,000

What's percentage is that? I'm trying to calculate but it's not coming out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Just over 4%

;-)

In all the talk about the AIDS charity, few people mention that Giustra sold his share of Urasia, finally, for $7.51. The shares were valued at $0.10 for him. I'm sure all that money went to the Clinton Foundation and the global fight on AIDS, of course...:sarcasm:

[Stephanie]

24. He made a tidy profit.

Would his sale of his shares be disclosed on the SEC site? I'd like to know exactly how much he made off that deal.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Since UrAsia was nothing but a piece of paper in a lawyer's office

Until this contract was approved, I'd say EVERYTHING he made from UrAsia was a result of this deal.

[Stephanie]

29. I am trying to search the SEC. It was a Cayman Islands shell company.

Can someone tell me if they are required to disclose sales of shares? There was an initial IPO to raise the funds to do the deal. When Giustra sold, his $.10 shares were valued at $7.50. I'd like to find out exactly how many shares he sold. How do I search that? Is it publicly disclosed information? Can't figure out how to search it at SEC site.

http://sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm

[Rockerdem]

28. This funny business stop won't stop during a Clinton administration

HRC is already a federal official. To think that Bill will feel obligated about temporarily postponing these kind of sleazy deals while she steps into another federal branch is delusional.