A new report from The New York Times indicates that the Clintons may have helped Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom gain control over one of the United States' largest uranium mines.
Rosatom wanted to buy a Canadian company that controls one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. But because uranium is a highly strategic asset with national security implications, the deal had to first be approved by several U.S. government entities, including the State Department, which was at the time headed by Hillary Clinton, reported The Times.
"Several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family ... built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One," wrote the Times.
As the Russians slowly took control of Uranium One between 2009 and 2013, millions of dollars were sent to the Clinton Foundation, according to Canadian records viewed by the Times.
"Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million," reported The Times. "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. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
The sale to Russia's state nuclear agency was finalized in 2010, with a price tag of $610 million, according the The Wall Street Journal.
The revelations are the latest in a slew of shady dealings unveiled in the forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," written by Peter Schweizer and set to be released May 5. A number of news organizations including the Times and WSJ were provided advanced copies to investigate various story lines.
The book alleges that Hillary Clinton used her influence at the State Department to provide favors to foreign governments and entities in exchange for large donations to the Clinton's charitable enterprises, and in some cases, exorbitant speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton.
"Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock," the Times reported.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show," according to the Times.
Schweizer writes in the book: "The really troubling thing about Bill's speeches is the apparent correlation between his fees and Hillary's decisions during her tenure as secretary of state."
ABC News reported on Thursday that once Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton started to collect speaking fees "double or triple" the amount he had been charging in earlier years, "bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department."
Before Hillary Clinton was head of the State Department, Bill Clinton typically collected $150,000 for speeches, but for speeches in 2010 and 2011, his asking price soared upwards of half a million, ABC reported.
Such a drastic increase in speaking fees isn't exactly normal, according to Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel's office under President George W. Bush.
Painter told ABC that it is "unusual to see a former president's speaking fee go up over time."
"I must say I'm surprised that he raised his fees. There's no prohibition on his raising it. But it does create some appearance problems if he raises his fee after she becomes secretary of state," Painter said.
Schweizer also alleges that circumstantial evidence suggests that Sweden-based telecommunications giant Ericson was able to persuade Hillary to "spare it from punishing economic sanctions for doing business with Iran by paying $750,000 to Bill Clinton to speak at a Nov. 12, 2011 telecom conference in Hong Kong," according to Yahoo, who noted that there was no smoking gun.
Yahoo continues: "Ericsson had come under pressure from the administration and Congress because the cellular communications giant makes technology, like GPS, that the Iranian regime could use to track and monitor opposition. It notes that the Obama administration, after a monthslong review, unveiled sanctions against Iran one week after Bill Clinton's speech - sanctions that left out the telecom sector. And it points out that when Obama took aim in April 2012 at the Iranian regime's use of high-tech equipment, he did not go after makers and sellers of that equipment, only those inside Iran and Syria who used it to hamper dissent."
Reuters also dropped a damning report Thursday on the Clintons' charities.
"Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors," Reuters wrote.
The previously unreported errors were found on the form 990s that non-profit organizations are required to file annually with the IRS in order to maintain a tax-exempt status. Charities also have to show those forms to anyone who inquires so that fund-raising efforts and expenditures can be better understood, according to Reuters.
"For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years," wrote Reuters.
Experts in charity law and transparency advocates told Reuters that the "numbers on the tax returns are not evidence of wrongdoing but tend to undermine the 990s role as a form of public accountability."
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign team maintains that the claims made in the book are "absurd, right-wing conspiracy theories" based on "sloppy research," according to Yahoo.
