(Scott Olson/Getty) The Clintons at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in October.

My latest Counter Propa article highlights the U.S. Russia uranium deal that sent 20% uranium capacity to Russia. In 2015, The New York Times stated “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”

Has Vox or POLITIFACT analyzed this quote?

Or just Trump’s wild accusations?

The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states “And 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.”

Vox, POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.

Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obama’s administration to approve the deal.

Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?

Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clinton’s speech at a Moscow bank?

There’s absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.

Also, nothing said at Trump’s press conference refutes the fact Uranium One officials donated millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia.

After Trump’s recent press conference, millions of Clinton loyalists gleefully read a POLITIFACT piece titled Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium.

That POLITIFACT piece references another POLITIFACT article titled In a nuclear claim, Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton ‘gave up’ one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia.

Both articles rate the truthfulness of Trump’s accusation that Clinton “gave up” (or was solely responsible) for the uranium sale.

As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in today’s neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.

Frist, Clinton didn’t even intentionally use a private server, so she didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself.

The issue POLITIFACT, Vox and others conveniently circumvent is the New York Times quote stating “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”

Did millions of dollars to her Foundation influence Clinton?

Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last year’s AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to America’s Secretary of State:

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

If you replace Clinton with Trump in the story above, how would Washington Post journalists react? 85 people give $156 million to Trump’s foundation and nobody questions the transfer of money?

This story (if Trump were the subject) would spark outrage today. Instead, Vox and others defended Clinton and denied any possible conflict to interest.

As for the uranium deal (approved under an Obama administration that eventually sanctioned Russia for alleged election tampering), it’s similar to Clinton’s weapons deal scandal reported by the International Business Times. Read the International Business Times article titled Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

This all gets back to the POLITIFACT articles.

POLITIFACT states “The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally.”

And… this is supposed to be a good thing?

The New York Times states “The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clinton’s State Department that approved a deal bringing “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

President Obama’s administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

If Putin is America’s great adversary, why did Clinton’s State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?

Why didn’t President Obama veto the deal?

Why did Uranium One officials feel the need to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale?

This blind spot within American media is the reason Trump won the White House. Clinton engages in an overt controversy, and the American press focuses solely on the semantics within Trump’s accusation. With Clinton, it’s never using a private server to hide information. Everything is merely a coincidence, or there’s enough semantic leeway for plausible deniability. Yoga emails were deleted, not Clinton Foundation emails.

As for the billions lost in Haiti linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hatian-born journalist Daddy Cherry demands the Clintons “Return Haiti’s Earthquake Billions.”

Congratulations, vigilant and daring American press, whose only goal is to defeat Trump. You’ve again focused on Trump’s wild accusations, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Once again, America is playing Trump’s game (fact checking based on semantics, as opposed to the overall picture) and refusing to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for a genuine conflict of interest. This paved the way for Trump’s recent conflicts of interest.

Sure, Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium.

Trump is wrong about Clinton “giving” the uranium to Putin.

Also, it’s 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, that’s true.

There, feel better now DNC?

You shouldn’t if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynn’s phone calls, or Trump’s contacts with Russia.

I highlight the impact of the Obama administration’s uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:

Is it America’s national interest to have “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”?

In the McCarthy era atmosphere of today’s Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?

For every fact-checking piece mocking Trump’s claims, simply reread the original NYT story. The New York Times explains the possible quid pro quo arrangement in a now legendary piece by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. 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.

And 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.

Again, would this be condoned if Trump’s foundation had accepted millions from uranium one?

Also, why were Uranium One donations “not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors”?

There’d be widespread calls for impeachment if this happened with Trump, and people would be right.

The Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars, as the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of Uranium One. Uranium One was already owned by the Kremlin, while the Podesta Group was lobbying on behalf of Uranium One. The Obama administration sold U.S. uranium to a company that was essentially owned by Putin.

The fact 9 agencies had to sign off on the deal is irrelevant. If Clinton’s State Department, under Obama approved the deal, this shows Hillary Clinton was never worried about Russian aggression or influence.

Uranium One officials felt the need to donate to Clinton’s Foundation during the uranium deal, and that brings up the question of Clinton’s influence on Obama’s administration.

Most importantly, the Clinton Foundation coincidentally shut down its Global Initiative, shortly after Clinton lost, and no longer accepts foreign donations.

Why did Bill and Hillary shut down the Clinton Global Initiative?

Could it be that the Clintons no longer have access to give to donors?

Or is it only Trump who has conflicts of interest?

The Clinton Foundation did accept millions of dollars from Uranium One during the sale, approved under Obama’s administration, while the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of company owned by Russia. In addition, the Panama Papers reveal Clinton’s ties to the Kremlin. Therefore, it’s a fact Clinton and President Obama presided over the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia. If the fact Uranium One officials donated millions amid the deal doesn’t bother you, then there’s a job waiting for you at Vox.

H. A. Goodman is the creator of Counter Propa and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication.